Defining and Perceiving Peoples in The Chronicles of Norman Italy

"VIDEBANTUR GENS EFFERA": DEFINING AND PERCEIVING PEOPLES
IN THE CHRONICLES OF NORMAN ITALY
by
Jesse Hysell
A Thesis
Submitted to the
Faculty of The Graduate College
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the
Degree of Master of Arts
Department of History
Advisor: Luigi Andrea Berto, Ph.D.
Western Michigan University

Kalamazoo, Michigan
June 2011
"VIDEBANTUR GENS EFFERA": DEFINING AND PERCEIVING PEOPLES
IN THE CHRONICLES OF NORMAN ITALY
Jesse Hysell, M. A.
Western Michigan University, 2011
The goal of this project is to analyze the ways different cultural groups in Sicily
and southern Italy were depicted in a set of historical texts associated with the Norman
takeover of those regions in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. To achieve that aim, I
consider social vocabulary applied to three distinct peoples (native Italians, Greeks, and
Muslims) in five sources written by Amatus of Montecassino, Geoffrey Malaterra,
William of Apulia, Alexander of Telese, and Hugo Falcandus. Although recent
scholarship has posited that medieval identity was often felt through a "self versus other"
or "Christian versus non-Christian" dichotomy, I have not found that the actual language
contained in my sources ever devolved into such simplistic, binary terms.
On the contrary, the images these medieval historians constructed were informed,
contingent, and rational. The highly nuanced depictions of outsiders were informed by
the style and content of their texts, contingent upon the demands of their patrons and
audiences, and rational in that the authors made politically prudent choices about what to
write. Though the perceptions and definitions applied to these groups of people were,
admittedly, sometimes based on uninformed stereotypes, they were more often
deliberately constructed images that were highly dependent on the cultural milieu in
which they were created.

Copyright by
Jesse Hysell
2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION 1
Preliminaries: Statement of Thesis and Outline of Methodology 1
Historiography 12
Sources 22
II. PRAGMATICS AND HOSTILITY IN DEFINING THE MUSLIMS 31
Introduction: Terms of Reference 31
Anti-Islamic Rhetoric among the Chroniclers 32
Treachery, Pride, and Greed: Non-Religious Denigration of Muslim

Characters 48
Positive and Ambivalent Portrayals of Muslims 61
Conclusions 78
III. THE LOMBARDS: EMPATHY AND ODIUM 82
Hostile Vocabulary in the Eleventh-Century Texts 85
Three Interpretations of Civitate 88
The Princely Lombard Family of Salerno 93
Twelfth-Century Interpretations of the Lombards 99
Calabrians 107
Bari Ill
Pisa and Venice 115
n
Table of Contents—continued
CHAPTER
Conclusions 122
IV. CONTEMPT FOR THE GRAECI 127
Stereotypes of the Byzantines 131
The "Greeks" of Sicily 143
William of Apulia and the Byzantines 148
Conclusions 151
V. GENS, NATIO, AND POPULUS 155
Introduction 155
Geoffrey Malaterra, William of Apulia, and Alexander of Telese 156
Gens and Populus in the Liber de Regno Sicile 163
Conclusions 174
VI. CONCLUSION 176
Preface 176
The Image of the Saracens 177
The Image of Italians 182
The Image of the Greeks 185
Gens, Natio, and Populus 188
Concluding Remarks 189
BIBLIOGRAPHY 190
in
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Preliminaries: Statement of Thesis and Outline of Methodology
"At first Gisulf spurned Robert's offer, not because he might have joined his sister
with a greater or nobler man, but because the Gauls seemed a savage people, barbarous,
dreadful, of inhuman mind (quia Galli I esse videbantur gens effera, barbara, dira, I
mentis inhumanae"1 Thus William of Apulia recounted the initial reaction Robert
Guiscard faced in his marriage proposal to Sichelgaita, sister of Gisulf II, the last
Lombard prince of Salerno. In this passage, the author has made a maximum statement
about human relations through a minimal use of language. The words, written at the end
of the eleventh century, highlight the fierce tension present in a land of cultural contact,
where diverse groups of people were constantly interacting and, at times, competing.
Here, the author has underscored the hostility with which the natives of the medieval
Mezzogiorno perceived the region's latest arrivals, the Normans.
Such a deeply prejudicial attitude toward these newcomers, expressed through
four highly charged pejorative adjectives, reveals several important points. It suggests, to
begin with, that the Lombards considered the Normans not only violent, but brutal in the
extreme. Barbara emphasizes their foreignness, while effera, dira, and inhumana seem
almost to imply that they were unthinking beasts rather than people. Yet even so, the fact
that they constituted a gens makes it apparent that they were indeed one of the various
1William of Apulia, Gesta Roberti Wiscardi, 11.424—428. All translations mine.

1
"peoples" who inhabited the earth, albeit possessing certain unsavory characteristics that
set them apart from the rest. All of these adjectives, of course, hinge upon the word
"seem," expressed with the passive form of videre. William was supplying his readers
with an impression, an appearance from the point of view of a Lombard observer, and
simultaneously taking great care to distance himself from such attitudes. These are,
nevertheless, stereotypes in the truest sense of the word, in that they refer to the image, or
fixed impression, that the prince of Salerno held of the Normans.
Based on Germana Gandino's work on the writings of Liutprand of Cremona and
Luigi Andrea Berto's analysis of John the Deacon's Istoria Veneticorum, the chief aim of
this ethnographic study is to analyze the social vocabulary applied to peoples in the
chronicles ofsouthern Italy and Sicily from the eleventh and twelfth centuries.2 During
this so-called Norman period, these lands represented the quintessential frontier region of
the central Mediterranean, where Latin Christian, Greek Christian, and Muslim
influences collided and overlapped.3 Successive waves oftransalpine migration added a
new element to this already complex dynamic, led to the eventual establishment of a
monarchy, and inspired a series of texts chronicling the area's tumultuous history.
2Germana Gandino, // vocabolario politico e sociale diLiutprando diCremona (Rome: Istituto

storico italiano per il Medio Evo, 1995); Luigi Andrea Berto, // vocabolario politico e sociale delta "Istoria
Veneticorum" di Giovanni Diacono (Padua: II poligrafo, 2001). In particular see chapter eight of Gandino's
study and chapter six of Berto's. As their titles indicate, both of these works covered a wide range of
political and social terms and were not restricted to ethnography, as mine is.
3For an overview of the history of southern Italy prior to the Norman arrival, see Barbara M.
Kreutz, Before the Normans: Southern Italy in the Ninth and Tenth Centuries (Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press, 1991); Vera Von Falkenhausen, La dominazione bizantina nell'Italia meridionale dal
IXall'XI secolo (Bari: Ecumenica Editrice, 1978); G. A. Loud, "Byzantium and Southern Italy (876-
1000)," in The Cambridge History ofthe Byzantine Empire, ed. Jonathan Shepard (New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2008), 560-582. Finally, Jakub Kujawinski assessed the potential that medieval southern
Italy offers for students of cultural interaction in Jakub Kujawinski, "Le immagini dell'"altro" nella
chronachistica del Mezzogiorno longobardo," Rivista Storica Italiana 118, no. 3 (2006): 768-815.
4Onthe rise of theNormans in southern Italy, see Huguette Taviani-Carozzi, La terreur du
monde. Robert Guiscard et la conquete normande en Italie (Paris: Fayard, 1996); G. A. Loud, TheAge of
Robert Guiscard: Southern Italy and the Norman Conquest (New York: Longman, 2000); Pierre Bouet,
Assessing how the authors of these sources used language to define the "Saracen,"
"Lombard," and "Greek" inhabitants of this area represents an important step in better
understanding cultural interaction in the High Middle Ages.5

The following sources6 will be used: Amatus of Montecassino's L'Ystoire de li
Normant, completed around 1080, which portrayed the Norman arrival in the
Mediterranean as the unfolding of divine providence;7 William ofApulia's Gesta Roberti

Wiscardi, finished probably in 1099 and composed as an epic poem focusing on the life
of Robert Guiscard;8 Geoffrey Malaterra's De rebus gestis Rogerii Calabriae et Siciliae
comitis et Roberti Guiscardi ducisfratris eius, which was written at about the same time
as William's Gesta, but as a prose narrative concerned mainly with the deeds of Robert
Guiscard's younger brother, Roger;9 the Ystoria Rogerii regis Sicilie Calabrie atque
Apulie, written by Alexander, abbot of the Benedictine monastery of the Holy Savior in
Telese, Italy in the mid-twelfth century and meant to depict Roger's son, King Roger II,
in a heroic light as an instrument of divine justice;10 finally, the Liber de Regno Sicilie,
"1000-1100: la Conquete" in Les Normands en Mediterranee, eds. Pierre Bouet and Francois Neveux
(Caen: Presses Universitaires de Caen, 1994), 11-25. Francois Neveux, "1100-1194: le Royaume
normand," in ibid., 25-38; John France, "The Occasion of the Coming of the Normans to Southern Italy,"
Journal ofMedieval History 17 (1991): 185-205.
The historian Robert Bartlett has provided an excellent overview of the primary methodological
challenges involved in the study of ethnic terminology. See Robert Bartlett, "Medieval and Modern
Concepts of Race and Ethnicity," Journal ofMedieval and Early Modern Studies 31, no. 1 (2001): 39-56.
6All of the texts are discussed more fully at the end of the introduction.
7Amatus of Montecassino, Storia de'Normanni, in Fontiper la storia d'ltalia 76, ed. Vincenzo
de Bartholomaeis (Rome: Istituto storico italiano per il Medio Evo, 1935). Hereafter Storia.
8William of Apulia, La geste deRobert Guiscard, ed. and trans. Marguerite Mathieu (Palermo:
Istituto siciliano di studi bizantini e neoellenici, testi e monumenti 4, 1961). Hereafter Gesta.
9Geoffrey Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii Calabriae etSiciliae comitis etRoberti Guiscardi
ducisfratris eius, in Rerum Italicarum Scriptores 5, ed. Ernesto Pontieri (Bologna: Nicola Zanichelli,
1928). Hereafter De rebus gestis Rogerii.
10 Alexander of Telese, Ystoria Rogerii regis Sicilie Calabrie atque Apulie, inFonti per laStoria
d'ltalia 112, eds. Ludovica de Nava and Dione Clementi (Rome: Istituto storico italiano per il Medio Evo,
1991). Hereafter Ystoria.
attributed to a certain "Hugo Falcandus," who wrote some time between 1170 and 1180,
concentrating on the reigns of William I and William II.
Several factors justify this selection oftexts.12 To begin with, they are the
fundamental sources for the period and locale under discussion, and they have sufficient
homogeneity to allow meaningful comparisons to be made. The authors belonged to a
common group, in that they were all learned writers in the service of the ruling "Norman"
elite.13 All owed allegiance, in one way or another, to the courts of southern Italy and
Sicily, and all were attached through bonds of patronage to the dukes, counts, and kings
who claimed control of those lands. Three of these authors are known to have been
monks (specifically Benedictine), and, for the other two, there is a lack of evidence to the
contrary.14 From a geographic standpoint, moreover, their narratives were confined
11 Hugo Falcandus, Liber deRegno Sicilie, in Fonti perla storia d'ltalia 22, ed. G. B. Siragusa
(Rome: Forzani, 1897). Hereafter Liber.
12 Two other potential sources, Falco of Benevento's Chronicon Beneventanum and Romuald of
Salerno's Chronicon, both from the twelfth century, have been excluded from this study. Falco's chronicle,
written outside the Norman Kingdom, was first of all meant as an attack on King Roger II, whom he
described as a rex nefandus. It seemed more appropriate to select only authors who, if not Normans
themselves, at least took a favorable view toward Norman rule. The text, moreover, has been transmitted
indirectly, surviving in the chronicle of the Cistercian monastery of St. Mary of Ferraria, and incompletely,
as the beginning and ending have been lost. Although it is true that the sole extant manuscript of Amatus of
Montecassino is quite problematic as well, its importance as the earliest of the five sources meant that it
could not justifiably be excluded. The chronicle of Romuald, archbishop of Salerno from 1153 to 1181, has
been left out for other reasons. The text was written as a world chronicle, and therefore only part of it
concerns events from the twelfth-century kingdom of Sicily, and much of that material discusses only the
Peace of Venice of 1177, which Romuald attended. Certain sections, moreover, may have been the product
of another author, which would complicate the task of terminological analysis. Truly, Romuald's text
deserves its own separate study. On these two sources, see Errico Cuozzo and Edoardo D'Angelo, "Falcone
da Benevento," in Dizionario biografico degli italiani 44 (Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, 1994),
321-5; G. A. Loud, "The Genesis and Context of the Chronicle of Falco of Benevento," Anglo-Norman
Studies 15 (1993): 177-198; Donald J. A. Matthew, "The Chronicle of Romuald of Salerno," in The
Writing ofHistory in the Middle Ages: Essays Presented to R. W. Southern, eds. R. H. C. Davis and J. M.
Wallace-Hadrill (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981), 239-274.
13 Pierre Toubert has in this regard referred to "l'homogen&te culturelle relative" of the authors.
Pierre Toubert, "La premiere historiographie de la conquete normande de l'ltalie m^ridionale (XIe siecle),"
in / caratteri originari della conquista normanna: Divers ita e identitd nel Mezzogiorno (1030-1130), eds.
Raffaele Licinio and Francesco Violante (Bari: Centro di Studi Normanni-Svevi della Universita degli
Studi di Bari, 2006), 32.
14 That is, Amatus of Montecassino, Geoffrey Malaterra, and Alexander of Telese. E. Pontieri,
introduction to De rebus gestis Rogerii, iv; Vincenzo de Bartholomaeis, introduction to Storia, xxii-xxiii;
almost entirely to the same area, rarely straying beyond the confines of the central
Mediterranean. In addition, these authors belonged to the same roughly defined period, as
all of them wrote within a century of one another.
Though chronicles were, by and large, written with an obvious polemic intent,
they do provide considerable information about the past that is not necessarily available
elsewhere.15 All five of these particular histories were written within a century of one
another, and together they offer a broad survey of many different peoples, or gentes, in
one of the most diverse regions of Europe. This data, when viewed through a sufficiently
critical lens, can be drawn on to learn more about how societies responded to the crises of
their age. Chronicles also generally tend to cover a longer period of time, and hence
include a broader assortment of cultural groups, than hagiographical texts. More
importantly, for this period, there are no plausible alternatives (such as works of travel
literature) concerned with southern Italy. In short, the wide time span covered as well as
L. De Nava, introduction to Ystoria, v. This similarity is no accident, and de Nava has aptly noted that
"l'atmosfera benedettina era certo particolarmente favorevole alia pratica della storiografia." Ibid., xxvi.
Very little is known about William of Apulia, although Mathieu thought it possible, if improbable, that he
was a certain Guillelmus Apulus, monk of Marmoutier. While others have suggested that the poet was a
layman, Mathieu pointed out that this possibility was "sans autre argument que l'absence de marveilleux
Chretiens dans son oeuvre, et le nombre restreint de citations des Ecritures Saintes." Mathieu, introduction
to Gesta, 23-25. There is, admittedly, even less to be said about "Hugo Falcandus," whose very name is
held in doubt. Siragusa noted that some scholars have argued the name could refer to "Hugues Focault,"
abbot of St. Denis in 1186, who would have come to Sicily with Peter of Blois and Stephen of Rouen. G. B.
Siragusa, introduction to Liber, x. Another suggestion has been that the author was either Eugenius, a
Greek royal official, or Robert of San Giovanni, a royal notary and canon. Evelyn Jamison, Admiral
Eugenius ofSicily: His Life and Work, and the Authorship ofthe Epistola AdPetrum and the Historia
Hugonis Falcandi Siculi (London: Oxford University Press, 1957) 200, 233. Although it has become
common convention to refer to the author of the Liber de Regno Sicilie as pseudo-Falcandus or "the so-
called Hugo Falcandus," I have chosen not to do this for ease of reading, and with the understanding that
the writer's identity remains highly problematic.
15 Forthe purposes of this discussion, theterm "chronicle" is used simply to mean a written
narrative history. This is by no means to imply that medieval histories necessarily fall into neatly defined
genres according to modern standards. Likewise, I refer to the authors under discussion here as
"chroniclers" for the sake of stylistic variation. For a brief overview of the problems involved in classifying
medieval histories based on specific criteria, see Deborah Mauskopf Deliyannis, introduction to
Historiography in the Middle Ages, ed. Deborah Mauskopf Deliyannis (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 1-13.
the geographic and thematic connections between these texts enable detailed,
comparative analyses to be made about the depiction of peoples in these histories.
Similarities aside, these sources also have sufficient diversity to allow for the
discovery and analysis of fascinating variations. A determined effort has been made to
balance a topical approach while paying due respect to each text -without sufficient
contextualization there is a danger that all the material presented will begin to look the
same. It is important to keep in mind the individuality of the authors, the audiences they
were writing for, and what is known about their backgrounds. To begin with, differences
in style, ranging from poetry to prose, can illustrate the effect of literary conventions on
the same basic "stock" material. This is especially true for the earliest three authors—
Malaterra, Amatus, and William—who often supplied three alternative versions of one
episode.16 Paying careful attention to the ways their accounts differ helps shed light on
17
the unique priorities of each author. In this regard, further diversity among the sources
stems from patronage and authorial intent, two criteria that were, as will be shown, highly
variable. Finally, from a chronological standpoint, the texts' time range makes it possible
to assess the degree to which language and attitudes resisted or embraced change between
1080 and 1180. Such an assessment holds special importance for southern Italy and
Sicily, where, in this period, the social and political environment witnessed considerable
transformation.
16 For instance, they provided three accounts ofthe battle ofCivitate. Malaterra, De rebus gestis
Rogerii, 1.14. William of Apulia, Gesta, 11.60-220. Amatus of Montecassino, Storia, III.38-40. For
corresponding analysis of this, see chapter three.
17 Mathieu wrote in the introduction to her edition of the GestaRoberti Wiscard that "il faut done
combiner les Gesta avec les autres sources, surtout les chroniques d'Aime et de Malaterra, pour obtenir une
vue d'ensemble et parfois pour comprendre les faits indiques tres brievement." Mathieu, introduction to
Gesta, 26-27'.
With that said, there are several issues that must be acknowledged at the outset,
some of which relate to medieval literature generally and some of which are peculiar to
this series of sources. Four of the five texts are in Latin, but this common characteristic
implies less homogeneity than first appearances might indicate. The epic poet William
of Apulia, for example, drew his inspiration from an ancient tradition of glorifying heroic
deeds inverse, and his writing testifies to a remarkably high level of learning.] In
comparison, Alexander of Telese's language was probably less influenced by classical
Latinity.20 Regardless oftheir education, however, the task of writing history presented
these writers with both a way to demonstrate their knowledge and to celebrate their
patron. As a result, it can be quite difficult to distinguish which material was original
and which was borrowed from an earlier source. However, since the purpose of this study
is not to track down and chart the intellectual heritage of the chroniclers (as important a
task as that is), but rather to explore the ways in which members of a specific community
perceived and portrayed the people who inhabited their central Mediterranean world, this
issue should not be seen as a complete stumbling block.
18 The only existing copy ofAmatus ofMontecassino's work isa fourteenth-century French
translation. For more on this, see below.
For detailed analysis of the poet's style and language in comparison to contemporaries see
Mathieu, introduction to Gesta, 56-70. "Les critiques posterieurs plus que l'ecrivain, et tout en ne
meconnaissant pas ses defauts . . . s'accordent a reconnaitre en lui un poete supeYieur a la moyenne de ses
contemporains, et dans son ceuvre une des meilleures epop6es historiques du temps, par sa clarte, sa
simplicity, sa versification habile et pas trop manieree, son classicisme sans imitations serviles, et, par
endroits, quelque elegance et quelque vivaciteV'
De Nava observed, for example, that Alexander "pur tenendo presenti le regole della
grammatica classica, slitta spesso nel sermo vulgaris." De Nava, introduction to Ystoria, xx. It would,
however, be wrong to characterize this historian as uneducated.
Some work has been done on the intellectual history of these writers, particularly that of
William of Apulia, for which see Umberto Ronca, Cultura medioevale e poesia latinad'ltalia nei secoliXI
eA7/(Rome: Societa Laziale Editrice, 1892), 403^109; A. Pagano, Ilpoema Gesta Roberti Wiscardi di
Guglielmo Pugliese(Naples: S. Morano, 1909), 108-118; Mathieu, introduction to Gesta, 61-62; Emily
Albu, The Normans in their Histories: Propaganda, Myth andSubversion (Rochester: Boydell Press,
2001), 106-144. Albu observed that the beginning of the text echoes Vergil's Aeneidwhile later sections
darken to resemble Lucan's Pharsalia, in her view indicating the author's disillusionment with Robert
Guiscard.
The single-most important influence for all of these writers was naturally the
Bible, and its presence can be found throughout the pages of these texts. No language
spontaneously generates, and, for medieval authors, it was this Book that was regarded as
the font of all knowledge, helping supply them with vocabulary and mental schemas. In
an era when any novelty was regarded with skepticism, if not outright hostility, historians
turned to the ancients as a matter of course. Thus, at the outset, there is an unavoidable
gap between literary convention and the "historical reality" being described.
Yet there is reason to be optimistic. When it comes to gauging mental attitudes,
this distance between text and reality becomes less of an issue, since mentalities and
realities are not necessarily one and the same. Behind the vocabulary, whether biblical or
classical, lurks the actual social environment of Sicily and southern Italy in the High
Middle Ages, a setting in which groups defined one another, drew boundaries, and often
fiercely competed. Part of the challenge of this project necessarily requires a certain
"chipping away" at the literary veneer to reveal how boundaries and definitions were
created. One of the best ways to achieve that task is to search the texts for the language of
hostility and intolerance, which involves evaluating the individual words employed to
describe people as well as assessing the stereotypes or "images" contained in the
12 This gap has in recent years been made all the more apparent by the advent of the "linguistic
turn," which questioned the mimetic capacity of language in general. It has led to some rather extreme
positions, above all from Hayden White, who sees historical narratives as no more than a literary genre.
According to this view, history is challenged at two levels of reality—as both event and as account. Hayden
White, Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-century Europe (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1974). Others, including medievalists, are more optimistic about the historian's ability to
explore human experience through the study of language, for which see Robert M. Stein, "Literary
Criticism and the Evidence for History," in WritingMedieval History ed. Nancy Partner (New York:
Oxford University Press, 2005) 67-87. For commentary from a non-medievalist, see Georg G. Iggers "The
"Linguistic Turn" : The End of History as a Scholarly Discipline?" in Historiography in the Twentieth
Century: From Scientific Objectivity to the Postmodern Challenge, ed. Georg G. Iggers (Middletown:
Wesleyan University Press, 1997), 118-133.
narratives.23 This critical approach seeks not so much to identify and interpret the
presence of archaic or classicizing elements within a text, but to restore the vocabulary
contained therein to the context in which it was created, and to interpret the meaning of
each term with respect to the world of its author.
Coming at the texts from this direction, the extent to which the monastic
worldview colored depictions of outsiders must be kept in mind. It could be argued that
monks, having withdrawn from the world, would have seen anyone who led the secular
life as an alien "other." Viewed from the austere seclusion of a place like Montecassino,
would any group of people have been regarded with anything but detachment? Or, to put
it another way, could attachment to the Order of St. Benedict take precedence over
attachment to regional or cultural loyalties? What will become evident in the following
chapters is that, while a monastic (or Cassinese) perspective did (to an extent) influence
some writers, rarely did these chroniclers evince any great difficulty in expressing their
appreciation and aversion for different peoples, or gentes.
With regard to depictions of the Muslims, the influence of the crusades cannot be
ruled out either. These authors wrote in a period when Christendom was reacting against
centuries of Islamic advance and when intellectuals were beginning to look at non-
!3 The term "stereotype" is obviously a modern expression that cannot capture the opinions of
medieval people in a wholly satisfactory way. I use it because the concept (first employed by journalist
Walter Lippmann in 1922) simply means prejudicial images, which are, broadly speaking, the subject of
this study. Lippmann referred to the stereotype as the "image in our heads," "its hallmark is that it precedes
the use of reason; is a form of perception, imposes a certain character on the data of our senses before the
data reach the intelligence." Walter Lippmann, Public Opinion (New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers,
1991 [reprint]), 98. The category of the stereotype has been criticized in recent theoretical studies of
ethnicity and is now sometimes substituted with the word "images," for which see Kujawinski, "Le
immagini," 771-772. Although it is of course hard to be precise with regard to the duration and diffusion of
judgments made about groups of people who lived centuries ago, it nevertheless seems an appropriate
enough term to use here, since there are indeed preconceived opinions clearly at work in these texts.
24 In that regard, this methodology places much more emphasis on social history than intellectual
history. For the thoughts expressed here I am indebted to Germana Gandino and Luigi Andrea Berto. For
elaboration on the utility of this approach, see especially the introduction to // vocabulariopolitico e
sociale di Liutprando di Cremona, 1-3.
Christians in new ways.25 Sicily has, however, often been regarded as a land without
crusade, a place where the kind of religious zealotry prevalent elsewhere in Europe never
took hold.26 More radical interpretations have even seen it as a cosmopolitan land of
toleration and coexistence.27 The language applied to Islam and its adherents therefore
needs to be treated with some care. A thorough examination of that language, however,
should help clarify the impact of a "crusader mentality" in this particular corner of
Christendom.
As considerable uncertainty about the existence of national sentiment and
ethnicity in the Middle Ages still lingers, a study devoted to the social vocabulary
contained in these texts is, at its core, meant to advance scholarly discourse on those two
topics. It goes without saying that philology is hardly unfamiliar to medievalists, yet
25 Forsome general studies on how the crusades impacted medieval European attitudes toward
Islam, see Norman Daniel, Islam and the West: The Making ofan Image (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press, 1960); Benjamin Kedar, Crusade and Mission: European Approaches toward the Muslims
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984); Jean Flori, "La caricature de l'Islam dans l'Occident
medieval," in Croisade et chevalrie, Xle-Xlle siecles, ed. Jean Flori (Brussels: De Boeck University Press,
1998), 163-178.
26 Two recent works thatreject the presence of the "crusader mentality" in Sicily have been H.
Houben, Roger II: A Ruler between East and West (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002) and A.
Metcalfe, The Muslims ofMedieval Italy (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2009). For other
assessments, see Glauco Maria Cantarella, "La frontiera della crociata: i Normanni del Sud," in // Concilio
di Piacenza e le Crociate, ed. Pierre Racine (Piacenza: TipLeCo, 1996), 225-246. For a classic
interpretation, see Roberto Sabatino Lopez, "The Norman Conquest of Sicily," in A History ofthe
Crusades, ed. K. M. Setton (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1958), 54-67, who wrote that
"although the Norman conquest of Sicily was probably the greatest triumph of Christians over Moslems in
the eleventh century, it is hardly exact to describe it as a duel between Cross and Crescent." See also Paul
E. Chevedden, "A Crusade from the First: The Norman Conquest of Islamic Sicily, 1060-1091," Al-Masaq
22, no. 2 (2010): 191-225, who argued, on the contrary, that the Norman campaigns in Sicily should be
reinterpreted as the true "first crusade." Similarly, Gordon S. Brown has written that Sicily "contributed
greatly to the opening up of the Mediterranean and the crusading movement." Gordon S. Brown, The
Norman Conquest ofSouthern Italy and Sicily, (Jefferson: McFarland, 2003), xi.
27 John Julius Norwich, for instance, held this view, writing that "tolerance was the cornerstone"
of the kingdom of Sicily. John Julius Norwich, The Kingdom in the Sun, 1134-1194 (New York: Harper &
Row, 1970), 125. Moses I. Finley and Denis Mack Smith wrote of it as a place "where society was
naturally cosmopolitan." Moses I. Finley and Denis Mack Smith, A History ofSicily: Medieval Sicily, 800-
1713 (New York: Viking Press, 1968), 61.
10
28
works on an entire set of texts, which look at a wide range of terms, remain rare.
Although this is intended to be a limited study, it may nevertheless lead to some
refinement of understanding in what is, admittedly, an extremely vast and complex area
of scholarship. It must also be stressed that this analysis, although utilizing "Norman"
sources, does not address how the Normans themselves were presented, nor attempt to
resolve the debate on the gens Normannorum, as that would be well outside the scope of
this project and has been studied at length elsewhere. On the contrary, a terminological
analysis of the vocabulary that these chroniclers applied to non-Norman outsiders, which
has never been done before, will shed light on perceptions of the "other" and contribute
to the debate on the meaning of ethnicity and the nation in this period.
28 Inthis regard, consider the voluminous scholarship on the meaning of the word miles, for a
summary of which see G. Tabacco, "Vassalli, nobili e cavalieri nell'Italia precomunale," Rivistastorica
italiana 99 (1987): 247-268. But for some examples of comprehensive analyses, see in particular Andree
Chelini, Le vocabulairepolitique et social dans la correspondance d'Alcuin (Aix-en-Provence: La Pensee
universitaire, 1959) and J. Adams, The Populus ofAugustine andJerome: A Study in the Patristic Sense of
Community (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1971).
29 Historiography on medieval depictions ofthe Normans and the question of"Norman identity" is
extensive, but see for example R. H. C. Davis, TheNormans and Their Myth (London: Thames & Hudson,
1976); Kenneth Baxter Wolf, Making History: The Normans and Their Historians in Eleventh-Century
Italy (Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1995); Emily Albu, The Normans in theirHistories:
Propaganda, Myth andSubversion (Rochester: Boydell Press, 2001); Hugh Thomas, The English and the
Normans: Ethnic Hostility, Assimilation, andIdentity, 1066-1220 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003);
Daniel Power, The Norman Frontier in the Twelfth andEarly Thirteenth Centuries (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2004); Nick Webber, The Evolution ofNorman Identity, 911-1154 (Rochester: Boydell
Press, 2005). For a summary of the principal elements of the debate on the gens Normannorum, see
Cassandra Potts, Monastic Revival and RegionalIdentity in EarlyNormandy (Woodbridge: Boydell Press,
1997), 3-5.
30 For some studies on cultural difference in the Middle Ages, see Ian Short, "7am Angli quam
Franci: Self-definition in Anglo Norman England," Anglo-Norman Studies 18 (1995): 153-175; G. A.
Loud, "How 'Norman' was the Norman Conquest of Southern Italy?" Nottingham Medieval Studies 25
(1981): 13-34; G. A. Loud, "The GensNormannorum—Myth or Reality?" Anglo-Norman Studies 4
(1982): 104-116; Joanna H. Drell, "Cultural Syncretism and Ethnic Identity: The Norman 'conquest' of
Southern Italy and Sicily," Journal ofMedievalHistory25, no. 3 (1999): 187-202.
11
Historiography
Medievalists have often questioned the significance and even the existence of
nations inthe Middle Ages.31 Because the modern nation depends so heavily on an
advanced state apparatus as well as the collective imagination of its populace, historians
typically place the beginnings ofnational sentiment relatively late.32 Bernard Guenee, for
instance, believed that the stabilization and development of states in the twelfth century
led to an increasing realization that subjects and sovereigns formed a unified
community.33 It was only in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries, he argued,
that inhabitants of a kingdom came to distinguish between themselves and those born
outside their political community.34 Bernd Schneidmuller has largely upheld Guenee's
opinion, emphasizing that national consciousness resulted only through a long and
extended process.35 Writing of France, he argued that the nation, when it existed at all,
31 Robert Bartlett has denied any direct link between political and ethnic homogeneity inthe
Middle Ages, writing that "modern nationalism at its crudest posits primordial and irreducible units called
nations, each of which has the right to its own state. Medieval thinkers often drew political conclusions
from race, but not usually this one ... A nation with its own language should have its own laws and
customs; it did not insist on political sovereignty." Bartlett, "Medieval and Modern Concepts of Race and
Ethnicity," 51-52. Norbert Kersken held a rather different position, and highlighted a number of examples
of national historical writing from as early as the eleventh and twelfth centuries. See Norbert Kersken,
"High and Late Medieval National Historiography," in Historiography in the Middle Ages, ed. Deborah
Mauskopf Deliyannis (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 181-215.
32 Onthe role of "collective imagination" in shaping the modern nation, see Benedict Anderson,
Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread ofNationalism (New York: Verso, 1991).
Anderson observed that, before the emergence of modern nationalism, the medieval world was divided
primarily along religious and dynastic lines. The members of Christendom shared a sense of attachment to
one another without any need for face-to-face interaction. Christians, like Muslims, created a sense of
belonging, a powerful mental image of communion, partly through the use of a holy language and partly
through a holy text. For Anderson, though, the boundaries of any imagined community were elastic, and
subject to constant revision. Identity in his model was a process, one that was shaped by rational choice and
that was contingent upon historical circumstance. Ibid., 12-36.
33 Bernard Guen6e, States and Rulers inLater Medieval Europe (New York: Basil Blackwell,
1985), 64-65.
34 Guenee, States andRulers, 64-65.
35 Bernd Schneidmuller, "Constructing Identities of Medieval France," in France in the Central
Middle Ages: Ages 900-1200, ed. Marcus Graham Bull (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 32.
12
was confined to a small circle of elites throughout much of the Middle Ages. For
Schneidmuller, inhabitants came to be aware of their kingdom's unique individuality only
in the thirteenth century as monarchical power and institutions gradually expanded.
From another angle, Patrick Geary has examined the fluid and artificial nature of
premodern ethnicity, primarily in an effort to dispute historical bases for modern
nationalist sentiment. In The Myth ofNations: The Medieval Origins ofEurope, he
contended that ethnic nationalism was an invention of the nineteenth century by showing
how antique and early medieval perceptions of group identity differed from those of
today.38 To that end, Geary reduced identity inthe premodern world to two forms: one
constitutional (or political) and one ethnic (or cultural).39 According to him, the former,
more inclusive model favored by the Romans gave way to the latter as the Western
Empire dissolved in the fourth and fifth centuries.40 While the populus Romanus
splintered into gentes, kings came to rely on classical historiography for political
legitimation.41 Thus Jordanes and subsequent historians, drawing on Greco-Roman
history and legend, wrote barbarian origin stories to validate the ascendancy of these
barbarian communities.42 While his historiographical assessments were fundamentally
sound, the neatness of Geary's theoretical approach perhaps overlooked a more complex
reality. Moreover, Geary's analysis stopped (rather arbitrarily) at the ninth century,
failing to address any changes in perceptions of group membership that took place in the
later Middle Ages.
36 Schneidmuller, "Constructing Identities of Medieval France," 16.

37 Schneidmuller, "Constructing Identities of Medieval France," 17.
38 Patrick Geary, The Myth ofNations: The Medieval Origins ofEurope (Princeton University
Press: Princeton, 2002), 41.
39 Geary, The Myth ofNations, 55.
41 Geary, The Myth ofNations, 60
13
Regarding the histories of Norman Italy, scholarship has tended to focus on the
concept of Norman identity with comparatively little attention paid to the chroniclers'
attitudes toward other groups. Although these identity studies have raised awareness of,
and appreciation for, this body of sources, they have perhaps been constrained by their
scope.43 Furthermore, although much work has been done to analyze the concept of
Norman identity expressed in the histories, there has been no comprehensive
ethnographic analysis of how the chroniclers perceived the other peoples described in
these narratives. All too often, scholars narrow in on how a single people were viewed
without considering how each author viewed every people, or how membership in
general was defined. More to the point, though an effort has been made to uncover the
fundamental attitudes contained in these narratives concerning the Normans and their
identity, a study of the attitudes expressed about non-Normans has never been done.
In his 1982 article, "The Gens Normannorum—Myth or Reality?," Graham Loud
produced a brief but insightful overview of the topoi used by eleventh-century writers in
which he evaluated the significance of ethnicity in the eleventh and twelfth centuries.
Looking at two of the most widely-read historians of Norman Italy, Amatus of
Montecassino and Geoffrey Malaterra, he addressed the question of how ethnicity was
expressed and understood in the larger medieval world.4 In an effort to identify the
literary antecedents of these authors, Loud considered the underlying themes of the texts
in terms of the ancient concepts ofgens and natio.45 By describing the innate
characteristics attributed to the gens Normannorum and by comparing those traits to other
Consider, for instance, Davis's The Normans and Their Myth, which covered three centuries and
multiple regions of Europe in less than 150 pages.
44 Loud, "The Gens Normannorum,''' 107.
Loud, "The Gens Normannorum," 110.
14
groups, he located and traced a literary tradition extending back to antiquity. Amatus
and Geoffrey were, perhaps, influenced by the earlier writings of the Norman monk Dudo
of Saint-Quentin, yet Dudo himself had drawn on the origo stories of Isidore.
According to Isidore's model, membership in a gens involved common descent, distinct
physical characteristics, and a unique worldview. Yet these ideas were not new even in
Isidore's day, as Loud observed, since the concept of an innate character belonging to
each gens had been expressed both by Sallust and by Aristotle before him.49 Although the
brevity of this article prevented him from making far-reaching conclusions, Loud
highlighted the fact that the process of defining and differentiating peoples in the High
Middle Ages, particularly in these Italian sources, deserved greater consideration.
Thirteen years after Loud's influential article, Kenneth Baxter Wolf attempted to
reconstruct the mentality behind some of the same southern Italian sources in Making
History: The Normans and Their Historians in Eleventh-Century Italy. In this
comparative analysis, which looked at the earliest and most hostile views of the Normans
found in papal and Cassinese histories alongside the later "heroic" texts, Wolf described
the historiographic process involved in transforming the Normans into protagonists. By
examining the literary devices available to the chroniclers, he revealed both how
medieval intellectuals made sense of the past as well as how history could be used to
legitimize a group of parvenu conquerors. Such efforts, as Wolf noted, were part of a
longstanding tradition begun by writers such as Jordanes, Bede, and Paul the Deacon,
46 Loud, "The Gens Normannorum," 109.

Loud, "The Gens Normannorum," 113. Specifically, Loud comments on how Isidore traced the
origins of the Goths from Magog in his Historia Gothorum. Isidore of Seville, Historia Gothorum, in
Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi 11, ed. Theodor Mommsen (Munich: Monumenta
Germaniae Historica, 1981), 293-4.
Wolf, Making History, 6.
15
who through their own histories had helped to found this genre of barbarian apologetic.
He concluded that the authors employed several legitimizing strategies: Amatus of
Montecassino built on the concept of the Normans as monastic protectors, William of
Apulia presented them as continuators of the Lombard legacy, and Geoffrey Malaterra
expounded on their lust for domination.
Because he sought to demonstrate that narrative material reflected an author's
identity, Wolf did make a certain effort to discuss how chroniclers perceived different
groups. For instance, he compared William of Apulia's slightly more sympathetic
treatment of the Lombards to the negative images of them encountered in Amatus's and
Malaterra's histories.55 Elsewhere, Wolf described Amatus's portrayal of Greek cruelty56

and Malaterra's peculiar attitude toward Muslims.57 Yet although Making History may
have contained some commentary on the characterization of different groups in these
eleventh-century histories, such analysis was limited in both quantity and detail.
Nevertheless, Wolfs outstanding work, based on the careful treatment of these chronicles
as textual artifacts, did much to reveal the ways in which educated minds in that period
understood the people and events surrounding them.
Emily Albu carried out her own assessment of the perceptions held by Norman
historians with The Normans in Their Histories: Propaganda, Myth, and Subversion. In
it, she searched for negative subthemes in a number of narratives, scouring them for
51 Wolf, Making History, 4.

52 Wolf, Making History, 87-122.
55 Wolf, Making History, 127.
56 Wolf, Making History, 97
57 Wolf, Making History, 160. The author saw Malaterra as wavering between ambivalence,
admiration, and intolerance. "The reader of Geoffrey's history is left to balance this deprecatory treatment
of Islam with a number of other images of Saracens that range from benign to downright sentimental."
Ibid., 160.
16
subtle, covert condemnations of the Normans that writers had slipped between the lines
of their texts. This nuanced approach led Albu to argue for what she believed to be a
persistent mood of despair lamenting the effects of their desire for domination, a thread
hidden in the lines of all of the works she examined.58 In her view, the Norman writers
were not seeking to inspire their readers with confidence, but were in fact lamenting a
"traitorous and violent history" that extended from England to Antioch.59

Though Albu included a chapter on "The Normans in the South," she only
examined William of Apulia's Gesta Roberti Wiscardi in any significant detail,
neglecting the other Italian chronicles previously mentioned. Borrowing from
observations made by Umberto Ronca in the nineteenth century, Albu asserted that
William had drawn directly from Ovid, Vergil, and Lucan in order to craft what she
found to be a satirically-minded epic.60 Unlike other scholars, she insisted that this
history was written not as panegyric, but as a way to voice the author's unease over
Robert Guiscard's greed and cruelty.61 In Albu's opinion, William's verse contained
allusions to the violence of Lucan's Pharsalia that were meant to be read as an
indictment of Norman aggression. Perhaps most surprisingly, she also contended that
William wrote favorably of the Greeks, his story's chief antagonists, and that he was
Albu, The Normans in Their Histories. See especially 239, where she spoke of "The anxiety of
Wace's narrative ... the lupine metaphors for Dudo's Northmen ... the disillusionment of the Gesta
Francorum, and the lamentations of Orderic Vitalis." For her discussion of the Italian histories in
particular, see Ibid., 138-142.
Albu, The Normans in Their Histories, 239.
Albu, TheNormans in Their Histories, 125. In reality, William of Apulia's direct borrowings
from classical writers are few and far between. Mathieu, introduction to Gesta, 61-62
61 Albu, The Normans in Their Histories, 129-144. Cf. Wolf, Making History, 123-138. Wolf
observed that in William's Gesta, "Robert Guiscard stood out as a confident and formidable warrior with
all the trappings of an epic hero." Ibid., 131.
Albu, The Normans in Their Histories, 126.
17
actually quite sympathetic to the Byzantine Empire.63 While it is regrettable that Albu
provided little discussion of the other major histories of Norman Italy, and admirable that
she attempted to identify connections between classical and medieval authors, it is also
notable that her work was received with a degree ofskepticism.64

Published in 2003, Hugh Thomas's The English and the Normans: Ethnic
Hostility, Assimilation, and Identity, 1066-1220 added to the ever-growing literature on
ethnic encounters in the medieval period. It is by far one of the most significant studies
carried out in this area in recent years. Focusing specifically on post-Conquest Anglo-
Norman relations, Thomas addressed how and why English identity ultimately triumphed
inthe face of the Norman military victory.65 Recognizing ethnicity as a mental construct,
and identity as the process used to reinforce that construct, Thomas examined references
to ethnicity in medieval chronicles in order to explain the factors that led to assimilation
in England.66
A substantial part of his work concentrated on stereotypes and the strategies
involved in classifying people into groups, showing how boundaries could be maintained
or dissolved in the Middle Ages.67 Citing a number of histories, Thomas demonstrated
the ways in which ethnic invective promoted the formation of national identity in
Norman England. He contended that stock expressions about what it meant to be English,
3Albu, The Normans in Their Histories, 135. Cf. Wolf, Making History, 129, who found
"negative characterizations . . . throughout William's work. The Greeks were effeminate, cowardly,
immoral, avaricious, cruel, and they dressed funny."
64 Cf. G. A. Loud, "The Normans in their Histories: Propaganda, Myth and Subversion. (Book
Review)," The English Historical Review 117, no. 474 (2002): 1310; W. Scott Jessee, "The Normans in
their Histories: Propaganda, Myth and Subversion. (Book Review)," Albion 34, no. 4 (2002): 628.
Thomas, The English and the Normans, 4.
Thomas, The English and the Normans, 12 ff.
67 Thomas, The English and the Normans, 32-55, 83-104, and 297-346 in particular.
18
whether positive or negative, ultimately strengthened Englishness as a construct and
served to maintain the image of a distinct group with distinct characteristics.
This impressive investigation into cultural interaction drew examples of hostility
and tolerance from a wide variety of historical narratives and revealed that medieval
intellectuals often relied on stereotypes when it served their purposes. Thomas's primary
intent, however, concerned how social status made cultural interaction more or less
likely, and therefore contained little actual assessment of the precise language used by
medieval historians indescribing the Anglo-Saxons and Normans.69 Thomas certainly

sampled a portion of the cultural terminology employed by writers such as William of
Jumieges and Henry of Huntingdon, but the extent to which he used this approach was
fairly restricted.70 An account of all the instances in which terms, stereotypes, or other
opinions appeared would have been more convincing, and more reliable, than presenting
a few passages taken from a source without sufficient contextualization.
In the absence of more direct evidence about cultural relations, which medieval
writers did not necessarily address in an explicit way, one of the most effective and
convincing techniques for evaluating medieval attitudes toward nations and ethnicity has
relied on full-scale, detailed analysis of the words applied to those concepts. In //
vocabolario politico e sociale di Liutprando di Cremona, Germana Gandino conducted a
comprehensive study of the entire political and social lexicon of Liutprand, the tenth-
century bishop of Cremona, which he employed in his Antapodosis, Historia Ottonis, and
Relatio de Legatione Constantinopolitana. She accounted for a wide set of terms,
including words of lordship and authority, such as potens, dives, and nobilis; words for
68 Thomas, The English and the Normans, 304.

69 Thomas, The English and the Normans, 391.
70 For example, Thomas, The English and the Normans, 34-35.
19
the lowest levels of society, such as cives, pauper, and servus; words for age, such as
puer, iuvenis, and senex; and words for cultural groups, including gens, natio, and
populus.11 In the case of natio, for example, Gandino observed its use seventeen times:
only once to indicate birthplace or ethnic membership, three times in relation to clothing
and appearance, and thirteen times in reference to language, political authority, or
geography.72 Throughout the work, Gandino thoroughly treated the numerical frequency
of each of these terms and also placed them within the context of Liutprand's narrative.
Luigi Andrea Berto's lexical analysis, II vocabolario politico e sociale della
"Istoria Veneticorum "di Giovanni Diacono, concerned the history of Venice written by
John the Deacon in the early eleventh century. In this work, Berto studied the ways in
which the chronicler portrayed the lagoon's inhabitants and also scrutinized the various
descriptions oftheir famed political institutions.73 He considered not only the chronicler's
descriptions of the Venetians themselves, but also how the chronicler defined and
perceived the other ethnic groups with which Venice interacted, such as the Sclavi,
Saraceni, and Teutonici.74 Much like Gandino, he also evaluated John the Deacon's use
of gens, natio, and populus, as they were contextualized into the larger history of
Venice.75 His study proved that the words were not synonymous, as some had suggested;
gens was applied disparagingly to outsiders, whereas populus was reserved solely for the
inhabitants of the lagoon.
Research into the cultural lexicons employed by medieval writers provides a
foundation upon which more fully substantiated observations about perceptions of "self
71 Gandino, II vocabolario politico e sociale, 307-308.

72 Gandino, 77 vocabolario politico e sociale, 271.
73 Berto, II vocabolario politico e sociale, passim.
74 Berto, 77 vocabolario politico e sociale, 252-269.
75 Berto, 11 vocabolario politico e sociale, 236-237 and 268-269.
20
and "other" in the Middle Ages can be made. Although sampling a source for a few
examples in which a certain word or expression is applied to a set of people can be
tempting, presenting all of the passages in which a group is described is necessary to
understand fully how they were perceived.76 For the Norman histories ofSicily and
southern Italy written by Amatus of Montecassino, William of Apulia, Geoffrey
Malaterra, Alexander of Telese, and Hugo Falcandus, I have attempted to conduct an
ethnographic analysis of the terminology used by each author.
Having broadly outlined the most essential aspects of this project, a few last
points need to be made about how exactly it has been carried out. Specifically, it has been
based on a survey of the words of hostility and intolerance, as well as an analysis of
different stereotypes used by each of the chroniclers in describing Muslims (Saraceni),
Lombards (Longobardi), and Greeks (Graeci).1 Any relevant words and phrases, along
with accompanying "stories," are considered in detail to allow the largest possible
number of observations to be made. The frequency with which terms appear in the texts
has been determined through computer searches carried out on electronic versions of the
752
documents. A conscious effort has been made to contextualize the data, both in terms of
how it fits within the overall narrative structure, and how it reflects the specific
motivations of the individual author. Finally, an effort was made to determine if the
76 Robert Bartlett has advocated this type of approach, observing that "the medieval terminology
of race and ethnicity was no more straightforward than our own . . . The actual semantic field of such terms
can only be mapped by detailed investigation of individual usage." Bartlett, "Medieval and Modern
Concepts of Race and Ethnicity," 42.
77 Perceptions and definitions of these three gentes are addressed inchapters two, three, and four,
respectively. Particular attention has been given to the attribution of nouns (such aspagani and barbari),
adjectives (like perfidus and superbus) and adverbs (for example, turpiterand fraudulenter) to various
"peoples" {gentes or populi). Other evidence of stereotyping, especially stories that seem to assign certain
vices or virtues to an entire group, are taken into account as well.
78 In this case, however, quotations have always been made by consulting the modern critical
edition of the source, not simply "copying and pasting" from a computer file.
21
words gens, natio, and populus were used by the writers interchangeably, or if each bore
a special and unique meaning. Such a study, it is hoped, lends insight into how the
"other" was viewed in Norman Sicily and southern Italy, how cultural boundaries were
viewed and expressed by writers in the High Middle Ages, and may serve as a small
stepping stone for future research into medieval perceptions of nations and ethnicity.
Sources
Written between 1080 and 1086, Amatus of Montecassino's L'Ystoire de li
Normant was the earliest text devoted to the Norman conquest of southern Italy and
Sicily.80 This narrative predated the works of both William of Apulia and Geoffrey
Malaterra by at least a decade, standing out not only as one of the most valuable sources
for the study of Norman history in the Mediterranean, but also for Norman history in
O 1
general. It covered the period from 999 to the death of Prince Richard of Capua in 1078,
focusing primarily on the arrival of the Normans in southern Italy and their relationship
with the Lombard rulers there. Amatus wrote during the abbacy of Desiderius, a time of
profound intellectual revival at the monastery. Montecassino had prospered
considerably in the preceding decades under the patronage of Prince Richard of Capua
and Duke Robert Guiscard of Apulia and Calabria, and the prodigious activity of the
scriptorium was one aspect of that development. Accordingly, the author presented the
Normans as faithful Christians who earned divine favor through their virtues and good
79 Forwhich seechapter five.

80 De Bartholomaeis, introduction toStoria, lxx. I have chosen not to utilize the text's presumed
Latin title, Historia Normannorum, as a reminder of the distance between the extant Old French manuscript
and the original source.
81 De Bartholomaeis, introduction to Storia, xvi.
82 De Bartholomaeis, introduction to Storia, xv
83 De Bartholomaeis, introduction toStoria, xvi, lxii-lxvii. See also F. Newton, The Scriptorium
and Library at Montecassino, 1058-1105 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 31-74.
22
deeds.84 Although Amatus is thought to have been a native Lombard, he considered the
conquest a positive product of God's will.85 Conversely, he sought to portray the

Lombards and Byzantines, perennial enemies of the Normans, as villains whose sins had
merited their downfall.86 The monk dedicated his work to Abbot Desiderius (the future
Pope Victor III), and it appears to have been meant for both a Cassinese and Norman
audience.
Unfortunately, no Latin manuscript of this text survives and little can be said
about the extant Old French translation, BN MS. Francais 688, which dates from the
early fourteenth century. ' There is virtually no evidence for the transmission of
Amatus's work during the Middle Ages, and indeed only dim hints exist of its presence in
the library of Montecassino itself. For his part, the medieval translator showed no
awareness that the history was written by Amatus, and referred to him simply as "cestui
moine."90 His vernacular was colored with numerous Italianisms, and he was in all
likelihood an Italian working for a French patron. The codex containing the translation
also includes the Chronicon of Isidore of Seville, the Historia Romana of Eutropius, Paul
the Deacon's Historia Langobardorum, and the Historia Sicula, a late thirteenth-century
84 De Bartholomaeis, introduction to Storia, lxiii-lxvii; Mathieu, introduction to Gesta, 9-10.

85 De Bartholomaeis, introduction to Storia, xxx.
86 Fordivine intervention against the Byzantines, see for example Amatus, Storia, 11.23 and 11.26.
For God's punishment of the Lombards, see ibid., III.38, 151. Their downfall was also revealed in two
prophesies in ibid., VIII. 1. As the modern editor of Amatus's text colorfully put it, "contro i nemici de'
Normanni e di Montecassino ha parole di fuoco." De Bartholomaeis, introduction to Storia, lxxi.
87 Amatus in fact dedicated the history to Abbot Desiderius. Amatus, Storia, 3.
88 De Bartholomaeis, introduction to Storia, lxxxv-lxxxvi.
Part of the history was employed by a later redactor of the Chronica Monasterii Casinensis of
Leo of Ostia. Vague references to the text were also made by seventeenth-century researchers. It was
however known in Normandy. Newton, TheScriptorium, 326.
90 For example, in Amatus, Storia, 1.16 and1.22.
91 De Bartholomaeis, introduction toStoria, xcvi-cii. The translator reported that he was working
for a certain count of "Militr^e," otherwise unattested.
23
text derived from Malaterra's writing. It is unclear when MS. 688 arrived in France, but
it eventually came into the possession of Cardinal Mazarin and later entered the library of
Louis XIV himself.93 Although the state of the text makes it impossible to conduct quite
the same type of lexical analysis that might be done with a Latin original, the Ystoire can
nevertheless provide some indication of Amatus's perceptions of the various peoples of
the Mediterranean. Vincenzo de Bartholomeis's 1935 modern critical edition can be
found in the source collection Fonti per la Storia d'ltalia 76.
Completed around the year 1099, William of Apulia's Gesta Roberti Wiscardi
was a work written in dactylic hexameter focusing on Robert Guiscard, duke of Apulia
and Calabria.94 Chronologically, it covered the years 1009 to 1085 (when Robert died).
William was associated with the court of Roger Borsa, the son and heir of the duke and
his Lombard wife Sichelgaita.95 He portrayed the Normans in a heroic light for defeating
the Greeks and Muslims who had laid claim to the region.96 Aspects of the poem display
a secular tone, and for this reason some historians have argued that its composer was a
Q7
layman, although in reality nothing is known about the writer. The Gesta was dedicated
to Pope Urban II and Roger Borsa, but the latter seems to have been the principal
QO
patron. While it perhaps enjoyed fairly widespread popularity in the medieval period,
92 De Bartholomaeis, introduction to Storia, xci-xciv.

93 De Bartholomaeis, introduction to Storia, lxxxviii-lxxxix.
94 Mathieu, introduction to Gesta, 13. Mathieu placed the date between 1095 and August 1099.
95 Mathieu, introduction to Gesta, 13.
96 Mathieu, introduction to Gesta, 13. "L'influence de Roger Borsa estsensible dans les passages
ou Guillaume de Pouille etablit la l^gitimite du pouvoir qu'il avait du deTendre, a la mort de Guiscard,
contre son demi-frere Bohemond." Ibid., 22. "Je penche ... en definitive a le croire Normand. Non qu'il fut
impossible que Roger Borsa choisit un Lombard pour chanter les exploits de son pere."
97 Mathieu, introduction to Gesta, 23-25. Mathieu argued against the interpretation that William of
Apulia came from a secular background, though. His epithet, Apuliensis, suggests that he was Italian, but
he just as well could have been loco Appulus, gente Normannus, like Bohemond. Ibid., 17.
>8 The postscript was addressed only to the duke, whom he identified as his dator. William of
Apulia, Gesta, 410^414.
24
appearing, for example, as far north as the libraries of Bee and Mont St. Michel, it
exists now in a single manuscript: Avranches, Bibliotheque municipale, MS. 162.100 The
modern critical edition was edited and translated into French by Marguerite Mathieu in
1961.
At about the same time William of Apulia was finishing his laudatory poem,
Geoffrey Malaterra wrote his De rebus gestis Rogerii Calabriae et Siciliae comitis et
Roberti Guiscardi ducisfratris eius, a prose work describing the conquest of Calabria and
Sicily at the hands of Roger de Hauteville, Robert Guiscard's younger brother. This
history spanned nearly two centuries, from Rollo's baptism in 911 to 1098, when Pope
Urban II made Roger papal legate of Sicily. It was written independently of both William
ofApulia and Amatus of Montecassino.101 The first chapters ofMalaterra's work dealt
with the Viking invasion of Normandy in the tenth century and the initial arrival of
Norman pilgrims to Italy in the early eleventh century, but the bulk of the material
Genevieve Nortier, Les Bibliotheques medievales des abbayes benedictines de Normandie.

Fecamp, Le Bee, Le Mont Saint-Michel, Saint-Evroul, Lyre, Jumieges, Saint-Wandrille, Saint-Ouen (Paris:
Editions P. Lethielleux, 1971), 212. Also mentioned in Mathieu, introduction to Gesta, 74. Mathieu
observed that "la presence de ces deux manuscrits des Gesta en Normandie au moyen age s'explique par
les relations intenses, des la fin du XIe siecle, entre l'ltalie meYidionale et la Normandie, et notamment
I'abbaye du Bee." Among medieval authors, however, Robert of Torigni (librarian of Bee and later abbot of
Mont St. Michel) is the only one known to have possessed familiarity with the text. It has been suggested
that he in fact brought it to Normandy from Italy. There are several Italian manuscripts of the Gesta, but
they all derive from the editioprinceps of 1582. There is no trace of the text's presence in Italy during the
Middle Ages. Ibid., 74-75.
There is, however, some possibility that Anna Comnena employed William of Apulia's Gesta
Roberti Wiscardi as a source for her Alexiad, or else had access to another lost text that was common to
both writers. Their accounts of Robert Guiscard's war against Byzantium, although written fifty years
apart, show certain similarities (especially with regard to their portrayals of the battle of Durazzo). Mathieu
provided a lengthy discussion of the debate on Anna Comnena's reliance on the Gesta, and concluded that,
for a few episodes, her source must have been William of Apulia. Mathieu, introduction to Gesta, 38-46
100 Mathieu, introduction to Gesta, 70.
Pontieri, introduction to De rebus gestis Rogerii, x-xix. It seems that all three writers wrote
without knowledge of one another.
The practice of apostolic legation effectively placed the ruler of Sicily in a position held by no
other European sovereign, and set the stage for a century of confrontation between Palermo and Rome.
Houben, Roger II: A Ruler between East and West, 21.
25
concerned the life of Roger.102 The chronicler recounted how the future count ofCalabria
and Sicily made his way to Apulia from his home in Normandy, and there joined forces
with Robert Guiscard.103 The pages of Malaterra's De rebus gestis Rogerii contain
detailed descriptions of the whole period from 1050 to 1100: events like the siege of
Reggio in 1060, Roger's bravery in the battle of Cerami in 1063, and the fall of Muslim
Palermo in 1071.104 Although the author boasted of the Normans' superiority over
Greeks, Lombards, and Saracens, he also candidly acknowledged a fierce rivalry between
the brothers, depicting Roger as a victim ofRobert's greed.105 In addition, Norman

shrewdness (caliditas) and lust for power (aviditas dominationis) surfaced repeatedly as
the central themes of the narrative.10
Malaterra identified himself in his opening as a monk and former cleric, but
1 07
revealed little else. Modern scholarship commonly accepts that he came from
• • 10R
Normandy on the grounds that he mentioned crossing into Italy a transmontanis. As
Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, 1.1-1.5. Roger de Hauteville entered the narrative in ibid.,
1.19.
103 Malaterra, Derebus gestis Rogerii, 1.19.
04 Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, 1.34; 11.33; 11.45.
105 Pontieri, introduction to Derebus gestis Rogerii, xl. This is especially clear in Malaterra, De
rebus gestis Rogerii, 11.21, where the duke refused to grant land to his brother. Open warfare between the
two broke out in ibid., 11.23.
106 Pontieri, introduction to Derebus gestis Rogerii, xxxii. On strenuitas in Malaterra's text, see
Ovidio Capitani "Specific Motivations and Continuing Themes in the Norman Chronicles of Southern Italy
in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries," in Lincei Lectures, ed. Ovidio Capitani, Giuseppe Galasso, and
Roberto Salvini (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977), \~46. Calliditas recurred throughout, as in
Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, III.36, 78. Pierre Toubert wrote that calliditas was a "terme tres fort et
rich de sens dans la vocabulaire malaterrien du type id6al du heros normand." Pierre Toubert, "La premiere
historiographie de la conquete normande de l'ltalie me>idionale (XIe siecle)," 37.
10 Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, 3.
Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, 3. "Sed a transmontanis partibus venientem, noviter
Apulum factum, vel certe Siculum ad plenum cognoscatis." The text's editor, Pontieri, argued that
Malaterra was a monk of St. Evroul, but cited no other evidence than this passage. Pontieri, introduction to
De rebus gestis Rogerii, iv. The notion was reiterated by De Bartholomaeis, introduction to Storia, xviii,
who wrote that "Goffredo Malaterra, normanno di origine, divenuto monaco benedettino nei monastero di
Saint-Evroul-sur-Ouche, in Normandia." Lynn T. White shared in the belief. Lynn T. White, Latin
Monasticism in Norman Sicily (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1938), 109. More recently, Pierre
Toubert has commented that "on passerait, je crois, a cote" de l'un des caracteres essentiels de son oeuvre si
26
for his purpose in writing, Malaterra expressly stated that Count Roger I of Sicily was his
patron, and it is likely that he hoped to legitimize the claims of the count's heir over those
ofRobert Guiscard's son, Roger Borsa.109 The four surviving medieval manuscripts, the
oldest of which dates from the fourteenth century, are in Palermo and Catania. This
text was known in medieval Normandy too, and was mentioned by the monk of St.
Evroul, Orderic Vitalis.111 The modern critical edition was edited by Ernesto Pontieri in
1928, and can be found in Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, secunda series, 5.
The Ystoria Rogerii regis Sicilie Calabrie atque Apulie was written by Alexander,
abbot ofthe monastery ofthe Holy Savior at Telese inthe mid-twelfth century.112
Focusing on the years 1127 to 1136, it was intended to depict King Roger II as a divine
instrument who restored order on the southern mainland after the death of his brother
Simon.113 Although clearly biased in favor of his story's protagonist, the author provided
some valuable information about the relationship between the Norman kingdom of Sicily
and its subjects in southern Italy.114 Like the works of William of Apulia and Amatus of
Montecassino, this text survives in just one medieval version: Barcelona, Biblioteca
Central 996.115 The modern critical edition was edited by Ludovica De Nava and Dione
Clementi and appeared in Fonti per la Storia d'ltalia 112 in 1991.
on negligeait de voir d'abord en lui un eleve doue de l'ecole monastique de Saint-Evroult d'Ouche."
Toubert, "La premiere historiographie de la conquete normande de l'ltalie meridionale (XIe siecle)," 26. It
bears repeating that there is nothing to confirm this aside from Malaterra's remark about having come from
across the Alps.
109 Malaterra, preface to De rebus gestis Rogerii, 4.
110 Pontieri, introduction to De rebus gestis Rogerii, li-lvii.
111 Mathieu, introduction to Gesta, 74. Pontieri, introduction to Derebus gestis Rogerii, xiii.
112 De Nava, introduction to Ystoria, xxvii.
113 De Nava, introduction to Ystoria, xxxiv.
114 De Nava, introduction to Ystoria, xxviii.
115De Nava, introduction to Ystoria, v.
27
The Liber de Regno Sicilie is the last historical narrative to describe the Norman
kingdom of Sicily in detail and remains the chief source of information for the period
from 1154 to 1169.116 Absolutely nothing is known about its author, who wrote some
time between 1170 and 1180.117 His identity, even his very name, has been debated since
the eighteenth century. The autograph version of the text has long since vanished, and the
history has come down to the present through four later codices from the thirteenth and
fourteenth centuries.118 The first attribution of the work to a "Hugo Falcandus Siculus,"
however, probably did not occur until the sixteenth century, and the German scholar Otto
Hartwig believed the name to be no more than an invention of the first editor. The
author supplied scant information about his motivation, other than a prefatory (and
commonplace) statement that he wanted to preserve the memory of recent events, some
190
of which he saw, and some of which he learned about through veraci relatione.
Although he praised King Roger II, Falcandus was also biased against many of the
principal actors in his narrative, lamenting the disorder that characterized the reign of
Roger's son and successor, William I.
Falcandus, whoever he was, did however provide an invaluable perspective on the
society of the twelfth-century regnum. As a window into both the different cultures of
medieval Sicily and the author's own attitude toward them, this source can be extremely
informative. The text has come down to the present in four manuscripts: V. Cod. Vat.
Lat. 10690; Paris, BN MS. Lat. 5150; Paris, BN MS. Lat. 6262; Paris, BN MS. Lat.
116 Siragusa, introduction to Liber, xvii.

117 Siragusa, introduction to Liber, x.
118 Fora survey of the longstanding historiographic debate onthe identity of "Hugo Falcandus"
and an overview of the Liber de regno Sicilie's manuscript tradition, see Jamison, Admiral Eugenius, 177—
219.
119 Siragusa, introduction to Liber, viii.
120 Falcandus, preface to Liber, 4.
121 Falcandus, preface to Liber, 6-7.
28
14357.122 The earliest of these, V. Cod. Vat. Lat. 10690, is from the first half of the
thirteenth century.123 The most recent critical edition is from 1897, edited by G. B.
Siragusa.
A few final points need to be made about the ethnographic content of these texts.
First, only in Geoffrey Malaterra's text, concerned as it was with Roger Ps capture of
Sicily, did the Muslims play a central role as his narrative's primary antagonists. This
author therefore had more to say about them than any of the other writers examined here,
although the "Saracens" were hardly absent from the other sources. By comparison, the
native Italian "Lombards" tended to be more visible in the mainland chronicles of
William of Apulia, Amatus of Montecassino, and Alexander of Telese, making somewhat
rarer appearances in the works of Geoffrey Malaterra and Hugo Falcandus, who were
both concerned primarily with Sicilian affairs. The Graeci (referring to Greek speaking
inhabitants of Sicily and southern Italy as well as the Byzantines) tended to enjoy fairly
good representation throughout.
At first glance, it might seem likely that a set of Latin Christian chroniclers,
writing in the era of crusade, would treat their Muslim characters with the greatest degree
of scorn, second, perhaps, only to their denigration of Greek Christians within the
Byzantine Empire, and that the Lombards would be positively portrayed. As will be seen,
however, the demands of style, intent, and patronage all helped dictate the various
depictions of the gentes contained in these texts at least as much as religious
122Siragusa, introduction toLiber, xxxi-xxxvii. The modern critical edition was, unfortunately,
edited without access to the earliest existing codex, V. Cod. Vat. Lat. 10690. This was lost in the eighteenth
century and was only rediscovered several years after Siragusa finished his work. Ibid., xxvii-xxix. Evelyn
Jamison has however studied this earlier codex and noted discrepancies between it and other versions.
Jamison, Admiral Eugenius, 200-219.
Jamison, Admiral Eugenius, 219.
1 That is, with the exception of Alexander of Telese, who made no mention of "Greeks"
whatsoever. For an attempted explanation of this lacuna see chapter four.
29
considerations. Generally speaking, the chroniclers described the Italian "Lombards" in
more deprecatory language than they did the Muslims, and instances in which relations
with non-Christians devolved into the clean simplicity of a black and white struggle
between good and evil are, in fact, considerably rare.
30
CHAPTER II
PRAGMATICS AND HOSTILITY IN DEFINING THE MUSLIMS
Introduction: Terms of Reference
An analysis of the vocabulary that these authors employed reveals a common,
meticulous effort on their part to categorize Muslims into different subgroups. With the
exception of Alexander of Telese, who unfortunately had little to say about non-
Christians, all of the chroniclers utilized a very specific set of words to define and
distinguish the various Islamic peoples featured in their texts. William of Apulia, for
instance, identified the Seljuk Turks as "Turchi" and "Perses," but never called them
"Agareni," a word he reserved for the Muslims of the central Mediterranean. Both he
and Malaterra were also careful to distinguish between Sicilians (Sicilienses, Siculi),
Arabs {Arabici, Arabes), and Africans {Africani, Afri). Likewise, Amatus differentiated
125 The fact that he differentiated between Turks and Sicilians is most apparent in the following
passage, where William wrote that, after the death of Robert Guiscard, his soldiers could not have been any
more afraid, even if all the peoples of the world attacked them: "Omnes si Danai, gens Persica, gens
Agarena / Hos invasissent, et ab omni climate mundi / Afflueret populus, peteretque armatus inermes: /
Non ilia hac formido foret formidine maior." William of Apulia, Gesta, V.368-371. Curiously, the word
Agareni was utilized as a pejorative term for the Normans in certain Italian sources from the mid-eleventh
century. Mathieu, introduction to Gesta, 4.
126 Although Malaterra referred to Africans, Arabs, and Sicilians all as Saracens, he nevertheless
made an effort to distinguish between the Muslims of Sicily and their coreligionists who hailed from
elsewhere in the Mediterranean. With the exception of chapter headings, Malaterra employed the term
Saracenus I Sarracenus a total of 26 times. Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, 1.4, 30; 1.14, 33 (three
times); 1.16 (twice); 1.20 (twice); 1.29, 40 (twice); 1.33, 42 (twice); 11.33, 45; 11.42; 11.42; III.8; III. 12; 111.30,
75 (twice); 111.32, 76; 111.36, 78; IV.2, 86; IV. 17, 96; IV. 18, 98; IV.22, 100; IV.26, 104; IV.29, 108. He
referred to the Arabici 9 times. Ibid., 11.32 (three times); 11.33; 11.35, 45; 11.46 (four times). He used
Africani 5 times. Ibid., 11.17; 11.32, 41; 11.33, 42; 11.44, 45; III.8. With the exception of the title comes
Siculorum, Sidles occurred in ten cases: ibid., II.8, 32; 11.17; 11.32 (twice); 11.33, 42^44 (twice); 11.41,49;
111.20.
William of Apulia employed the term Siculi or gens Sicula 9 times. William of Apulia, Gesta,
1.197; 1.201; 1.244; III. 199; III.203 {gens sicula); III.319; III.338; III.343; III.433. Arabes appeared once.
Ibid., III.483. The words Afri or Affri occurred twice. Ibid., III.225; III.483.
31
between "the Arabs and Berbers (// Arabi et li Barbare)," who could be found in Africa
and Sicily, and the "Turchi," who dwelt at the eastern fringes ofthe Byzantine Empire.127
Finally, Hugo Falcandus used the word Masmudi to refer specifically to the Almohads,
no t t ,
while identifying other Muslims as Saracens {Sarraceni). The exquisite attention to
detail that these writers paid evinces a surprising familiarity with the different cultures
within the dar al-Islam. Such terminology, moreover, reveals that the chroniclers were
not using these terms indiscriminately, but instead recognized, in one way or another, the
fact that not all Muslims were the same.129
Anti-Islamic Rhetoric among the Chroniclers
When they did choose to denigrate Islam, the authors typically portrayed Muslims
as pagans, enemies of Christianity, or as recipients of divine vengeance. For monastic
writers, one of the worst deeds the infidel could perpetrate was to oppress faithful
members of Christ's flock. To begin with the earliest source, it is true that Amatus of
Montecassino did level this charge against Muslim characters, but he did so less often
than one might expect (on only four occasions). Near the beginning of his history, he
127 "Arabi et Barbare" were mentioned in Amatus of Montecassino, Storia, VII. 1. Like Malaterra,
Amatus typically identified Sicilians either as "Saracens (// Sarrazin)" or as "pagans (// Pagan, li Paeri)."
He employed both terms when discussing the Sicilians as well as the Muslims in Spain and the Italian
mainland, and had no specific word for the inhabitants of Sicily. Contrary to Metcalfe's observation,
Amatus never in fact used the expression "Sicilien." Cf. A. Metcalfe, Muslims and Christians in Norman
Sicily: ArabicSpeakers and the End ofIslam (New York: RoutledgeCurzon, 2003), 56. William of Apulia
did not explicitly refer to Muslims as barbari, although he did write of a Byzantine army as composed of
"Maxima barbaricae cum Graecis." This force, in subsequent lines, was revealed to include Turks. William
of Apulia, Gesta, IV.323. He also referred to Emperor Henry IV's soldiers as barbaries. Ibid., IV.539.
128 Masmudi derives from the name of the Masmudah Berbers, the tribe from which the Almohads
arose. For an etymological discussion, see F. Corriente, Dictionary ofArabic and Allied Loanwords:
Spanish, Portuguese, Catalan, Galician, and Kindred Dialects (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 371.
129 Inthis regard I disagree with Alex Metcalfe on the significance attached tothese words, which
he believes were used in an idiosyncratic way. Metcalfe, Muslims and Christians in Norman Sicily, 58.
According to him, "there is no sense in which different terms came to be standardized with time and their
meanings varied capriciously according to the source in which the name was applied."
32
mentioned that the Saracens had, in the early eleventh century, ravaged the region around
Salerno for the city's refusal to pay tribute. According to the author, they "hewed, slew,
and destroyed the land {talloient et occioient et gastoient la terre)." When a group of
Norman pilgrims discovered these Christians being made "subject a li Sarrazin" in such a
way, they took up arms and drove them off.131 They thereby delivered the people of
Salerno "de la servitute de li Pagan."132 Much later, as Amatus had Robert Guiscard
contemplating the invasion of Sicily, he wrote that the duke wanted to stop the Muslims
"who were killing Christians there most forcefully {liquel occioient li Chrestien molt
fortement)."m In that way, the author provided the necessary moral justification for the
Norman expedition.134
Amatus did this again just a few chapters later, mentioning that the Saracens had
formerly taken Sicily from Christian hands: "li Sarrazin, liquel avoient leve celle ynsule
de la main de li Chrestien."135 The implication, therefore, was that any military endeavor
would be a wholly legitimate act of restitution. Immediately after making this comment,
Amatus had Robert Guiscard address his soldiers by saying: "I would like to deliver the
Christians and Catholics who are held in servitude to the Saracens; and I much desire to
take them out of their servitude and to avenge the injury to God {Je voudroie delivrer li
Christien et li Chatolici, liquel sont constreint a la servitude de li Sarrazin. Et desirre
130 Amatus of Montecassino, Storia, 1.17, 22.

133 Amatus of Montecassino, Storia, V.7.
134 It could be argued thatGeoffrey Malaterra made use of this theme as well, albeit to a lesser
extent. Although he mentioned Christians in captivity at several points, he never used language similar to
that found in Amatus. Cf. Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, 11.14, "hie Christiani, in valle Deminae
manentes, sub Sarracenis tributarii erant;" IV.2, "cives vero, christianos plurimos in captione infra urbem
habentes, solutos ab urbe ejiciunt;" IV.3, "promittens etiam, sub ostentantione legis suae, nulla classe fines
christiani nominis pervasum ulterius tentare, et quos eiusdem religionis captivos tenebat, coactus est
absolvere;" IV. 16, "pro libitu comitis primo captivos christianos, quorum plurimam multitudinem infra
urbem tenebant, redunt."
33
1 ^6
molt de chacie[r] les de la servitude lor, etfaire venjence de la injure de Dieu)r
Amatus thus made it quite clear that the duke's campaign met the criteria needed to wage
a just war, a preoccupation of somewhat more apparent concern to this monastic writer
than other authors.
Amatus condemned the Muslims on other explicitly religious grounds as well. For
example, his version of Robert Guiscard accused them of "malice" stating he had worked
to save Sicily, which had been corrupted by 'Terror de li Sarrazin." During the siege of
the mountain fortress of Castrogiovanni, Amatus identified the Muslim defenders as
pagans and infidels.138 There, he had Robert tell his soldiers that the mountain on which
the stronghold sat was made not of stone and earth, "but of accumulated filth and
perversity."139 Outside Italy, when describing the siege of Barbastro in 1064, the author
wrote that the Christian knights had come driven by a desire to destroy the "detestable
folie de li Sarrazin."140Amatus also included a description ofthe conversion of the central
mosque of Palermo, writing that, after Robert removed the "dirt and filth {ordesce et
ordure) from the temple, he asked the archbishop to say Mass.141 Although all ofthis is
undeniably hostile language, it is important to note that this was also as far as Amatus
ever took his anti-Islamic rhetoric. As will be addressed shortly, Amatus had nothing
more to say about their religion when discussing Muslims elsewhere in his narrative,
which he did at some length.

137 Amatus of Montecassino, Storia, VII.27, 321
138
Amatus of Montecassino, Storia, V.23, 242. "Quar Dieu est potent a nouz, petite gent et fidel,
de donner victoire de la multitude de li non fidel . . . Et furent li Pagane a fuir, et donna cuer a li Chrestien
de persecuter li Pai'en."
1 Amatus of Montecassino, Storia, V.23, 242. "Ceste montaingne, non de pierres ne de terre, mes
de l'ordure de heresie et perversity accolta."
141 Amatus of Montecassino, Storia, VI.19,282.
34
By comparison, William of Apulia treated the Muslims—especially their religious
beliefs—with far more contempt.14 Focusing onthe career of Robert Guiscard, the poet's
broad scope brought in Muslims from across the Mediterranean and gave consideration to
Byzantium's relations with the Turks as well as to the Normans' involvement in Sicily.
With that said, it is nevertheless true that Muslims occupied a relatively minor place in
William's text, neither center stage as they did for Geoffrey Malaterra, nor even second
stage as inAmatus ofMontecassino's history.143 Yet even without assigning his Muslim
characters a major role in the Gesta, the poet was still much less restrained when it came
to deriding their religion.
In the text, William called the Sicilians by a variety of slanderous names, every
one of which carried an obvious religious connotation. Before turning to Robert
Guiscard's expedition in Sicily, he described the earlier efforts of the duke's brother as a
"noble war {nobile bellum)" because, he explained, Count Roger "contra Siculos divini
nominis hostes semper pugnavit."144 William went on to add that Roger had been fighting
against these enemies of the divine name "desiring to raise up the holy faith {sanctam
exaltarefldem cupiens)."145 Whereas Amatus endeavored to supply a valid pretext for the
invasion of Sicily (Saracen oppression), for the poet, the war against the Sicilians was a
self-justified sacred enterprise and a means of exalting Christianity.
142 This has been noted byseveral modern scholars. Emily Albu attributed William of Apulia's
"anti-Muslim fervor" to influences of the First Crusade, launched at the time he was writing the Gesta.
Albu, TheNormans in their Histories, 131. More recently, Paul Chevedden has challenged this view,
arguing that William was accurately describing holy war sentiment felt by those taking part in the Sicilian
campaign during in the 1060s rather than anachronistically imposing such a theme. Chevedden, "A Crusade
from the First," 191-225.
143 As Mathieu aptly commented, the poet "s'interesse surtout aux evenements de Puille et relegue
au second plan ceux des autres regions." Mathieu, introduction to Gesta, 11.
44 William of Apulia, Gesta, III. 198.
145 William of Apulia, Gesta, III.200-201.
35
The Turks, called Turchi or Perses, were the only other Muslim group aside from
the Sicilians who figured into William's epic in any significant way. As with the
Sicilians, William's negative terminology for them was based entirely on their religion.
The poet first mentioned their attacks on the Byzantine Empire during the reign of
Michael VII Ducas (1067-1078).146 Momentarily turning his attention from Italy to
events in Anatolia, he stated that a great part of the "gens cristicolarum" perished in the
Seljuk onslaught, "killed by the vile swords of the Turks {interfecta nefandis Turchorum
gladiis)."H1 By calling the Byzantines "Christians" rather than "Greeks," and thereby
casting the calamity in religious rather than secular tones, William undoubtedly sought to
elicit greater sympathy for the victims of the Turks' "impious" blades.
The adjective nefas, meaning something sinful or profane, came up once more
with regard to the Turks when the poet described the capture of Constantinople in 1081
by Alexius I Comnenus (1081-1118).149 According to William, Alexius allowed his

Turkish troops to loot the city for several days, during which the "savage Persians
{atroces Persae)" did not hesitate "to violate {violare)" the holy places with their
"impious hands {nefandis manibus).,,l5° Since he made Alexius himself responsible for
the sacrilege, it would appear that William meant this as a slight against the emperor,
146 Onthe troubled reign of Michael VII Ducas, seeGeorgije Ostrogorski, History ofthe Byzantine
State (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1969), 345-348.
147 William of Apulia, Gesta, III.7-12. "Horum temporibus Turchos orientis ab oris / Egressos
fugit gens territa cristicolarum, / Qui Romaniae loca deliciosa colebant. / Maxima pars horum ruit interfecta
nefandis / Turchorum gladiis, et captis urbibus omnis / Subditus his populus dans vectigalia servit."
148 Luigi Andrea Berto has observed that, by calling the victims Christians, William of Apulia put
the Byzantine rulers in an especially negative light since it showed them remaining inactive in the face of
enemies of Christ. Luigi Andrea Berto, '"Non audaces sed fugaces.' The Image of the Byzantines in Early
Medieval South Italy: The Lombard and Norman Viewpoint," unpublished article, 14.
149 On this emperor's reign, which spanned nearly forty years, see Ostrogorski, History of the
Byzantine State, 348-375.
150 William of Apulia, Gesta, IV. 150-154. "Depraedanda tribus datur Urbs invasa diebus / Dux
quibus extiterat; manibus quoque sancta nefandis / Atroces Persae loca non violare verentur. / Ducit
Alexius hos, magis ut timeatur, ad Urbem."
36
who allowed such crimes to take place, as well as against the Turks. Thus, for the poet,
the Turks were savage and impious violators, regardless of whether they were in the
service of a Christian ruler or fighting against one.
Shortly before this episode, William also alludedto the Turks' role as enemies in
the First Crusade. Here, he began by describing a tumultuous civil war in which a rebel
Byzantine commander challenged the new ruler in Constantinople, inciting the Turks to
support him in his conflict with Byzantium: "from that time on, the Persarum gens
perfida began to rise up against Romania with slaughter {caede) and rapine {rapinis)."
The Turks were for William a gens perfida, a faithless people, and the poet went on to
state that the pilgrimage routes would have remained threatened to the present day had
not the gens Gallorum defeated the enemy and opened up the roads to the Holy
Sepulcher.152 This is one ofthe most contemporary pieces of information contained in the
poem, and, by expressly linking the Turks with the idea of the First Crusade, William
clearly wanted to emphasize that they were dangerous infidels.
Although Malaterra was more hesitant than William to attack Islam, he did
sometimes depict Muslims as God's outcasts. To that end, he referred to them as a gens
inimica (which could, in certain contexts, be interpreted as "diabolical people," but which
151 William of Apulia, Gesta, III.98-99. "Tempore Persarum gens perfida coepit ab illo / In
Romaniam consurgere caede, rapinis."
152 William of Apulia, Gesta, III. 100-105. "Imperii nee adhuc redigi sub iuravaleret, / Gens nisi
Gallorum, quae gente potentior omni / Viribus armorum, nutu stimulata superno, / Hanc libertati superato
redderet hoste, / Quae spirante Deo sanctas aperire Sepulcri / Est animata vias longo iam tempore clausas."
As Mathieu noted, this helps date the poem to after the preaching of the First Crusade (1095) but before the
capture of Jerusalem (August 1099). Mathieu, introduction to Gesta, 12.
153 Cf. Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, IV.24, who wrote only that those who took upthe cross
were required to invade the borders of the pagans, but did not mention any preceding attacks by the Turks
on Romania.
37
could also mean simply an enemy) and twice identified them as a gens Deo rebellis.
Elsewhere, the author wrote that the Saracens were a people thankless to God {gens Deo
ingrata), who had wrongfully seized the land {usurpaverat) and given it over to idols
{terram idolis deditam)}55 Malaterra also displayed contempt for Islam itself by calling
the religion a superstition {superstitio),156 at one point calling books ofthe Qu'ran "libri
superstitionis legis suae," and repeatedly identifying Muslims as pagani. In one less
extreme instance, after Roger captured Catania, Malaterra said that the count had
snatched the church there from of the clutches of an "unbelieving people {incredula
154 Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, II. 33,44; ibid., 11.35, 46. Gens inimica is translatable as
either "enemy people" or "diabolical people." See Charles du Fresne Du Cange, Glossarium
mediae et infimae latinitatis (Niort: L. Favre, 1887), 366. Lewis and Short, however, defined inimicus
only as "unfriendly, hostile, inimical." Charlton T. Lewis and Charles Short, A New Latin Dictionary
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), 955. Jan-Frederick Niemeyer defined the substantive noun inimicus as
"the Devil." Jan-Frederick Niemeyer, Mediae Latinitatis Lexicon Minus: lexique latin medieval, francais-
anglais (Leiden: Brill, 1976), 538.
155 Malaterra, Derebus gestis Rogerii, II. 1,29. "Si terram, idolis deditam, ad cultum divinum
revocaret, et fructus vel redditus terrae, quos gens Deo ingrata sibi usurpaverat, ipse, in Dei servitio
dispensaturus, temporaliter possideret." It is worth noting that Malaterra also used the verb usurpare when
describing the rebellion of Roger's son, Jordan. See ibid., III.36, 78. Cf. Augustine of Hippo, Epistula ad
catholicos de secta Donatistarum, in Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, vol. 51, ed. Michael
Petschenig (Vienna: Lipsiae, 1908), V.30 . "Adiungunt etiam de loth, quod solus cum filiabus de sodomis
liberatus sit, de ipso quoque abraham et isaac et iacob, quod pauci fuerint deo placentes in terra idolis et
daemonibus dedita."
There is a voluminous body of modern historiography concerned with medieval perceptions of
Muslim "idolatry." Some of the earliest work was done by Marie-Therese d'Alverny, who discussed the
rise in libelous stories about Muhammad and depictions of Muslims as pagan idolaters that occurred at the
time of the First Crusade. Marie-Therese d'Alverny, La connaissance de Tlslam dans VOccident medieval
(Aldershot: Variorum, 1994 [reprint]). Norman Daniel argued that it was a mere literary convention aimed
at demonizing the enemy and was "never very serious." Daniel, Islam and the West, 304. Maxime
Rodinson likewise viewed it as part of popular mythology. Maxime Rodinson, Europeand the Mystique of
Islam, trans. Roger Veinus (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1987), 16. Benjamin Kedar was struck
by the fact that, in the face of fairly accurate concepts of Islamic monotheism enunciated by writers like
Guibert of Nogent and William of Malmesbury, distorted images of Muslim idolatry persisted. Kedar's
only explanation for this was that more accurate information brought back from the crusades must have
circulated unevenly. Kedar, Crusade and Mission, 87-88. Jean Flori has suggested that Saracen idolatry
was a common stereotype genuinely believed by the writers who used it and was a tool that helped them
justify the dominant ideology of holy war. It was part of what Flori called "une veritable revolution" that
worked to transform Christians, members of a religion of peace, into soldiers of Christ who would combat
the pagan infidel in the name of God. Flori, "La caricature de l'lslam dans l'Occident medieval," 165-178.
156 Malaterra, Derebus gestis Rogerii, 11.45, 53; ibid., III. 16.
Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, 11.13. "Libris superstitionis legis suae coram positis,
juramento fidelitatem firmant."
158 Paganus appeared a total ofnine times. Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, 11.32, 42; 11.33
(three times); III.30 (four times); IV.24.
38
gens).,,]59 Though referring to the Muslims as unbelievers is not in itself particularly
hostile, the rest of the comment would seem to imply that they posed a threat to the
Christian community there. Elsewhere, the author reported that a mosque and former
church in Palermo had been "ab impiis Saracenis violata" and made into a "templum
superstitionis eorum."160 Yet, in comparison to William ofApulia's account ofthe fall of

Palermo, Malaterra's description actually appears relatively mild.
In fact, William's portrayal of that particular event contains the majority of his
text's anti-Islamic rhetoric. In his version of the battle for Palermo (fought in 1072), the
poet called the Christian forces "cultores Christi," "christicolae," and "turba fidelis"
while referring to the sailors of a joint fleet of Africans and Palermitans as a "perfida
gens," orfaithless people.161 Having received communion, the Christians put the Africans
and Sicilians to flight through God's will, "nutu divino."162 William later referred to the
forces that sallied forth from the gates to attack the besiegers as a "populus iniquus."
Care should be taken to avoid reading too much into this expression (which, like the
adjective inimicus, could sometimes possess diabolic connotations) since it was
previously applied to the Normans themselves when they were oppressing southern
Italy.164 In this scene though, when the Muslims began to retreat, the poet had Robert
Guiscard urge his troops to pursue the enemy, and strike the backs of what he called the
159 Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, IV.7, 90.

160 Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, 11.45, 53. "Ecclesiam sanctissimae Dei Genitricis Mariae,
quae antiquitus archiepiscopatus fuerat—sed tunc ab impiis Saracenis violata, templum superstitionis
eorum facta erat."
162 William of Apulia, Gesta, III.247.
163 William of Apulia, Gesta, 111.261-262.
164 William of Apulia, Gesta, 11.73. Cf. Charles du Fresne DuCange, Glossarium mediae et
infimae latinitatis, 366. "Diabolus."
39
"perversa gens," orevil people.165 Then, as they prepared to assault the city proper,
Robert told his soldiers that victory was assured because the city was hostile to God and
devoted to demons: "urbs inimica Deo, divini nescia cultus, subdita daemonibus."166
After the fighting was through, William described the surrender of Palermo, an
account which stands in sharp contrast to Malaterra's prose version of events. According
to William, when the "gens Agarena" realized that they had been beaten, they gave up
unconditionally, and asked the duke only to spare their lives. Robert appeared therefore
as a benevolent victor by taking pity on the inhabitants of the city even though they were
"gentiles."168 Malaterra, onthe other hand, specified that the Palermitans agreed to
surrender the city on the condition that their religion would remain safe.169
In his description of the siege's aftermath, William also displayed more
willingness to attack specific aspects of Islam than Malaterra. Both authors wrote about
the conversion of Palermo's mosque into a church, but whereas Malaterra tersely referred
to it as a "templum eorum superstitionis," William identified the building more
precisely as a "muscheta," and said that Robert, rather than converting the existing
mosque, had made sure to destroy the entire structure of this "templum iniquum" before
165 William of Apulia, Gesta, III.270. This could very well be a play on words, since the adjective
perversus literally means "turned the wrong way," and these soldiers had their backs to the Normans as
they tried to flee back into the city. Lewis and Short, A New Latin Dictionary, 1361.
167 William of Apulia, Gesta, III.321-325. "Gens Agarena, videns se viribus omnibus esse /
Exutam, tota spe deficiente salutis / Suppliciter poscit, miseros miseratus ut eius / Respiciat casus, neque
dux rependat. / Cuncta duci dedunt, se tantum vivere poscunt." Amatus of Montecassino also specified that
the surrender of Palermo was made unconditionally. Amatus of Montecassino, Storia, VI.19, 281 "Et puis,
quant il fu jor, dui Cayte alerent devant, loquel avoient l'ofice laquelle avoient li antique, avec autrez
gentilhome. Liquel prierent lo Conte que, sans null autre condition x\t covenance, doie receivoir la cite a
son commandement."
168 William of Apulia, Gesta, III.328-330. "Nullum proscribere curat, / Observansque fidem
promissi, laedere nullum, / Quamvis gentiles essent, molitur eorum. "
Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, 11.45, 53. "Primores, foedere interposito, utrisque fratribus
locutum accedunt, legem suam nullatenus se violari vel relinquere velle dicentes, scilicet, si certi sint, quod
non cogantur, vel injustis et novis legibus non atterantur."
170 Malaterra, Derebus gestis Rogerii, 11.45, 53.
40
founding a completely new church.171 What's more, Malaterra worked to justify the deed
in a way that William did not, explaining that the building had in fact formerly been a
cathedral dedicated to the Virgin Mary.172 The conversion ofthe mosque thereby became
1 TX
a rightful act of restoration (expressed through the verb reconciliare). William, on the
other hand, made no mention of the building's history, but wrote instead that the
building's destruction glorified {glorificans) God.174 For the poet, the razing ofsuch a
temple of evil needed no other explanation. By building the new church, he stated that
what had once been a seat of "Machamati cum daemone" became a seat of God. Thus,
by going further than just mentioning the Prophet by name, and literally demonizing him,
1 lf\
William evinced far greater animosity toward Islam than Malaterra ever did.
Altogether, the poet applied disparaging names to the Sicilians a total of five
times, and used other rhetorical strategies (such as associating Muhammad with demons
and calling their mosque a temple of evil) to indicate that they were enemies of the faith a
total of four times.177 In sum, then, there are nine instances of the poet attacking the
Muslims of Sicily, which are strung together in very short order; all of these instances of

172 This was an accurate observation on Malaterra's part. Prior to becoming the main cathedral of
Palermo, this building had seen use as a mosque, a Byzantine church, and an ancient Greek temple. Despite
what William of Apulia recorded, it was not destroyed when the city was captured. It was actually
demolished and rebuilt in the following century. See Metcalfe, TheMuslims ofMedieval Italy, 101.
173 Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, 11.45, 53
174 William of Apulia, Gesta, III.332-334. "Glorificansque Deum templi destruxit iniqui / Omnes
structuras, et qua muscheta solebat / Esse prius, matris fabricavit Virginis aulam."
176 William of Apulia's familiarity with Islam is especially surprising given that R. W. Southern
found no evidence that anyone in northern Europe had even heard the name of Muhammad before the year
1100. R. W. Southern, Western Views ofIslam in the Middle Ages (Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1962), 15. It has become almost an academic cliche to suggest that the crusades brought increased
knowledge about Muslim beliefs back to Europe. If we accept Marguerite Mathieu's dating of William's
text, he finished writing before the end of the First Crusade. This leaves little time for returning soldiers to
return with information about the religion of Islam, and the poet's awareness of the name of Muhammad
and of mosques seems more likely due to his proximity to the Muslims of Sicily.
177 In order, those names were: divini nominis hostes (William of Apulia, Gesta, III.199), perfida
gens (ibid., III.240), iniquuspopulus (ibid., III.261-262), perversa gens (ibid., III.270), gentiles (ibid.,
III.330).
41
anti-Sicilian sentiment are religiously-based and come within 140 lines of one another.
It would seem that, because the Sicilian campaign did not play an especially large role in
William's text, his opportunity to abuse the inhabitants of that island was fairly small.
Whereas William of Apulia's religious invective concerned the fall of Palermo,
Malaterra's anti-Muslim rhetoric was confined primarily to his description of the battle of
Cerami (1063).179 Here, however, the Muslim combatants appeared more misguided than
downright evil. The chronicler explained that the Lord was punishing the Muslims
because they failed to acknowledge Him in prayer, appearing ungrateful, but he was also
i on
careful to point out that they were nevertheless "His creatures." The use of this phrase,
deus suus in Latin, is particularly relevant because it alludes to the existence of a single
God for Christians as well as Muslims, and because it highlights the fact that Malaterra
i o I
was not attempting to just roundly demonize the latter group.
At Cerami, Malaterra's righteous Count Roger went on to exhort his troops as
follows: "That people is rebellious to God {gens ista Deo Rebellis est), and men who are
not guided by God are quickly exhausted. They glory in their own virtue; we, however,
178 The first reference to the Sicilians as divini nominis hostes came in Book III, verse 198. The
final piece of invective, where William called the mosque of Palermo a Machamati cum daemone sedes,
was on verse 335.
179 On this battle, fought ontheplains near the town of Troina, see Loud, The Age ofRobert
Guiscard, 157-158. Despite its outcome, Loud noted that its long-term effect on the war in Sicily should
not be overstated. Houben, Roger II: A Ruler Between East and West, 15, shared this view. Metcalfe, The
Muslims ofMedieval Italy, 95, has, however, written that the victory sealed Norman control over the north
east of the island.
180 Malaterra, Derebus gestis Rogerii, 11.33, 43. "Deus suus—dico—non quod eum colendo
cognoscebant, sed quia, quamvis indigni, Factori suo ingrati existendo, tamen eius creaturae erant."
181 A similar notion can be found expressed intheninth-century Chronica Sancti Benedicti
Casinensis, which referred to a Dominus omnium shared by both Christians and Muslims. This has been
noted by Luigi Andrea Berto, who detected some religious and humane qualities attributed to
Montecassino's Muslim enemies. Luigi Andrea Berto, "I musulmani nelle cronache altomedievali
dell'Italia meridionale (secoli IX-X)," in Mediterraneo medievale: Cristiani, musulmani ed eretici tra
Europa e Oltremare, ed. Marco Meschini (Milan: Vita e pensiero, 2001), 10.
42
trust in God's help."182 In the subsequent passages, two miracles occurred: St. George led
the charge mounted on a white horse and carrying a crossed banner, and a similar
standard appeared tied to the count's own lance. In a chapter already containing elements
of holy war, Malaterra's inclusion of St. George, a military saint who appeared in battles
during the First Crusade, made the religious overtones all the more obvious. Needless
to say, the Saraceni soon suffered a horrendous defeat at the hands of their Christian
adversaries. Yet the message of the chronicler was not so much that the Saracens were
1 R4
evil, but rather in conflict with God—a significant difference.
There were only two notable cases in which Malaterra expressly portrayed any
Saracen character as a diabolical enemy of Christ. Both of these instances concerned
Benarvet, the Muslim prince of Noto, whom the author caricaturized as an archetype of
impiety. Described as "christiano nomini infestus," Malaterra's Benarvet led an
attack on Calabria that "devastated {devastat), destroying down to the roots {a radice
1 0*7 1 OO
destruendo)P He first plundered Nicotera and took men and women prisoner. In
182Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, 11.33, 44. "Gens ista Deo rebellis est, et vires, quae a Deo
non reguntur, citius exhauriuntur. Ipsi in virtute sua gloriantur; nos autem de Dei praesidio securi sumus."
183 For more information on St. George's significance to the crusaders, see Jonathan Riley-Smith,
TheFirst Crusade and the Idea ofCrusading (New York: Continuum, 2003), 105.
184 As Houben has observed, the religious imagery inMalaterra's account of Cerami was
incidental, as were the religious undertones of the entire mission in Sicily. The primary motives of the
conquest were political and economic, and in fact had little in common with the ideals of the First Crusade.
See H. Houben, Roger II: A Ruler between East and West, 20. "Was this perhaps an anticipation of a later
crusade? Hardly, since the motivation for the conquest of Sicily was not primarily religious; it was not
about freeing holy places or combatting Islam. It was just a by-product of the conquest, so to speak, that
Sicily was won back for Christianity." Scholars such as Pierre Touben continue to reject this interpretation,
writing for instance that it is possible to see "dans les Gesta de Malaterra les elements constitutifs d'un recit
de pr6-croisade." Toubert, "La premiere historiographie de la conquete normande de l'ltalie meridionale
(XIe siecle)," 38.
185 Metcalfe has suggested that this may be a Latinized form of the name Ibn al-Ward or Ibn
'Abbad. Nothing is known about this figure. Metcalfe, The Muslims ofMedievalItaly, 100.
Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, III.30, 75. "Benarvet, apud Siciliam christiano nomini
infestus."
Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, IV.1. "Benarvet, Syracusiae navigio apparato, navali
exercitu apud Nicotrum veniens, a radice destruendo devastat." This idea of utter destruction was also
expressed by the ninth-century southern Italian chronicler Erchempert, who reported in a similar fashion
43
Reggio, he sacked the churches of St. Nicholas and St. George, disfigured sacred images,
and carried off sacred vestments and vessels. Finally, at Squillace, Benarvet laid waste to
an abbey dedicated to the Virgin Mary, abducted the nuns, and raped them {turpi stupro
1RQ
dehonestat).
Grammatically, Malaterra seems to have been careful to have only Benarvet
perpetrating these deeds, rather than an entire Muslim raiding party. Every verb in this
episode is singular, with Benarvet as the subject. His forces, which the author
ambiguously referred to as a navalis exercitus, were mentioned only once, and in the
ablative. Thus, while others may have accompanied Benarvet, the author assigned agency
to him alone. Malaterra's indictment, therefore, appears to have been leveled against one
man in particular, rather than the Saracens in general.
Even so, there is no denying that the allegation of rape directed at Benarvet is
certainly one of the strongest accusations the author made against any character in his
narrative. Although he alluded to it elsewhere, even among the Normans, he never
described it so explicitly.190 At the same time, Malaterra loaded this episode of sexual
that Charlemagne's soldiers destroyed things down to the roots like locusts when they came to Benevento.
Erchempert, Historia Langobardorum Beneventanorum, in Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores
rerum langobardicarum et italicarum saec. VI-IX, eds. George Waitz and Oswald Holder-Egger
(Hannover: Hahn, 1878), c. 2. "Super Beneventum autem Gallico exercitu perveniente, praedictus Arichis
viribus quibus valuit primo fortiter restitit, postremo autem, acriter praeliantibus, universa ad instar
locustarum radice tenus corrodentibus." This has been analyzed by Berto, who pointed out that Erchempert
did not explicitly state that the Franks acted like locusts, because the subject ofpraeliantibus and of
corrodentibus is implied, and could refer to the Lombards. Since the Franks were the ones on the attack,
though, he felt it more likely that it was Charlemagne's soldiers who wrought such terrible destruction.
Berto, "I musulmani," 15.
188 Nicotera was again attacked in 1122 by an Almoravid expedition, which, according to Arabic
sources, sold the inhabitants off into slavery. Houben, Roger II: A Ruler between East and West, 38.
Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, IV. 1. "Inde progressus, quandam sanctimonialium
abbatiam, in honore sanctae Dei Genitricis et Virginis Mariae, in Scyllacensi loco, qui Rocca Asini dicitur,
consecratam, aggrediens, devastat; sanctimoniales abductas turpi stupro dehonestat."
190 The author went so far as to say that the inhabitants ofSicily, both Muslim and Christian,
feared for the safety of women. In Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, II.l 1, a young man in Messina killed
his sister believing that she would be violated by the Normans. In ibid., 11.29, 40, the Greeks were said to
be "de uxoribus et filiabus timentes," which inspired them to revolt against the occupation of their town.
44
violence with powerful religious themes. He made Benarvet's act of rape all the more
severe by having it perpetrated against holy virgins — the brides of Christ. At a second
level then, the crime involved the forced cuckolding of the Lord. The author filled the
entire chapter with different forms of sacrilege carried out by this pagan infidel: Benarvet
violated holy places, icons, and liturgical objects in much the same way that he violated
the nuns. Yet by assigning agency to one Saracen ruler, and not his followers, Malaterra
seems to have chosen to not to deprecate the Muslims as a whole.1

God did not delay punishment for the crimes, though. In the chapter that
immediately followed, Benarvet, "instinctu diaboli" led his fleet into combat with Count
Roger's ships where he was promptly defeated. When the Muslim leader jumped into
the water to flee to safety, he sank from the weight of his armor, and Malaterra explained
that the injury he had arrogantly inflicted on God was thus punished with appropriate
vengeance. Here again it must be noted that the invective was directed against a single
individual. God's wrath fell upon this man alone, and for a very specific reason:
191 John V. Tolan has interpreted rape as a way underline the brutality and lust of Muslims and to
shock Christian readers. He believed it was a way of demonizing the "Muslim other." John V. Tolan,
Saracens: Islam in the Medieval European Imagination (New York: Columbia University Press, 2002), 93-
94. Malaterra, however, seem to have villainized Benarvet not because he was a Muslim, but because he so
fiercely resisted Count Roger.
192 Malaterra, Derebus gestis Rogerii, IV.2, 86. "Benarvet instinctu diaboli, qui vitam eius jam
misera morte terminare volebat, quo navem comitis eminus agnovit, magno impetu grassans, illorsum
irruit." It is interesting that here the devil served as both an instrument of divine vengeance and as the
inspiration for wrongdoing, leading Benarvet to his death. The devil appeared fulfilling this double role in
other medieval chronicles. For some examples, see John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, ed. and trans.
Luigi Andrea Berto (Bologna: Zanichelli Editore, 1999), III. 1; Paul the Deacon, Historia Langobardorurn,
in Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores rerum Germanicum, eds. George Waitz and Ludwig
Bethmann (Hannover: Hahn, 1978), 111.26; Liutprand of Cremona, Historia Ottonis, in Corpus
Christianorum 156, ed. Paolo Chiesa (Turnholt: Brepols, 1998), c. 20. Malaterra's basic message appears
to have been that Benarvet was connected to the devil, and that the forces of evil held sway over this
Muslim leader. It may be further significant that Benarvet died by drowning immediately after desecrating
a church devoted to St. Nicholas, the patron saint of sailors. For relevant commentary on the devil in John
the Deacon, Paul the Deacon, and Liutprand of Cremona, see Berto, "La guerra e la violenza nella «Istoria
Veneticorum» di Giovanni Diacono," Studi Veneziani 42 (2001): 15-41.
Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, IV.2, 86 "Sicque injuriam, quam Deo arroganter intulit,
divino judicio condigna ultione multatur."
45
Malaterra needed to make Benarvet into a diabolically inspired aggressor who waged a
ruthless war on Christianity because he represented the last obstacle to Roger's conquest
of Sicily. Just as the author made his patron into an instrument of divine wrath, he
portrayed the count's Saracen nemesis as an unholy adversary, who was willing to
physically violate the church and was guided by the devil himself.
All three authors used violation and oppression as ways to denigrate Muslims, and
in that respect they were similar to the later Hugo Falcandus, who voiced considerable
outrage over the risks of apostasy and the oppression of Christians by crypto-Muslims
within the kingdom of Sicily. This twelfth-century historian modified Amatus's old
theme of the "yoke of Islam" by making conversion or apostasy an added threat to the
new Christian realm. Falcandus displayed particular loathing toward one subversive
element in particular, the palace eunuchs, whose abuses he repeatedly condemned.
Though all such officials underwent baptism, Falcandus explained that they could not be
trusted since they were "Christian only in name and appearance, Saracen in spirit {nomine
tantum habituque christianus erat, animo saracenus)," and suggested that people who
gave up Christianity for Islam enjoyed the protection ofthe eunuchs.196

To drive home his point about their wickedness, the author reflected vividly upon
the cruel misrule of several of these men, such as qa 'id Martin, who visited "rabies et
furor" upon the city of Palermo.197 These are strong expressions that refer to an especially
194 On eunuchs in the kingdom of Sicily, see Pasquale Corsi, "L'eunuco," in Condizione umana e
ruoli sociali nei Mezzogiorno normanno-svevo, ed. Giosue Musca (Bari: Dedalo, 1991), 251-277
195 Falcandus, Liber, c. 10, 25. The eunuchs' Islamic faith was an open secret. It was atte
both Romuald of Salerno and Ibn Jubayr as well. Metcalfe, The Muslims ofMedieval Italy, 195.
196 Falcandus, Liber, c. 41, 115.
46
inhuman, animal madness.198 Falcandus reported that Martin had Christians brought to
trial on unsubstantiated charges, and then beaten, tortured, thrown into the arena, or
publicly hanged "with Saracens watching and laughing {videntibus Sarracenis et
illudentibus).199 Another official, defined as a "homo sceleratissimus," was charged with
seizing Christian property, raping an unmarried woman, and (worst of all?) renovating an
"antiquissimum Sarracenorum templum."200 To add insult to injury, he was also said to

have supported a brothel where Muslims were free to violate {constuprare) Christian
women and take advantage ofpueri.201 Even qa 'id Peter, in other respects an able
administrator, jeopardized the peace of the kingdom because he could not relinquish the
natural hatred his people felt for Christianity.
Although Falcandus made use of one of the same standard topoi of his
predecessors (the physical and spiritual dangers of Islam), he seems to have employed it
for a rather different reason. Amatus relied on it as a justification for the conquest of
Sicily, while Malaterra and William took recourse to it as a means of maligning some of
their stories' antagonists. Falcandus, writing in a period of greater cultural contact, and
198 The latetenth-century Venetian chronicler John the Deacon also made use of rabies to describe
the Slavic pirates of Narento, perceived as the worst of all enemies because of the threat they posed to
Venetian commerce in the Adriatic. For a relevant analysis, see Berto, // vocabolario politico e sociale,
258. "Degno di nota e che Giovanni Diacono usi proprio il vocabolo rabies e non altri come cupiditas,
perche esse sembra fare riferimento ad un comportamento bestiale, non guidato dalla mente umana, anche
se questo aveva come unico risultato il furto dei beni e non l'uccisione dei malcapitati."
199 Falcandus, c. 14,80.
200 Falcandus, Liber, c. 41, 115. This was the castellan Robertof Calatabiano. Although Falcandus
never described him as a Muslim, he did say he was "sub eunuchorum protectione" in chapter 41. Metcalfe
believed he was probably a Christian convert. Metcalfe, The Muslims ofMedieval Italy, 203-205.
202 Falcandus, Liber, c. 16,90-91. "Idem autem Petrus, licet parum consulti pectoris et
inconstantis esset animi, mansuetus tamen, benignus et affabilis erat. . . et nisi gentile vitium innatam viri
mansuetudinem prepediret, nee eum pateretur christiani nominis odium penitus abiecisse, regnum Sicilie
multa sub eo tranquillitate gauderet."
47
therefore greater tension, was instead disturbed by the social turbulence produced by
Christian-Muslim rivalries within the kingdom.
Treachery, Pride, and Greed: Non-Religious Denigration of Muslim Characters
Invective could take many forms, and even when applied to the Muslims it did not
always follow sectarian lines. Whereas William of Apulia largely confined himself to
abusing Islam and its adherents on religious grounds, the other chroniclers sometimes
attached negative attributes of another variety. For example, Amatus of Montecassino's
Saracens were associated with hubris, and for Hugo Falcandus they could be lecherous or
deceitful. Geoffrey Malaterra, moreover, frequently portrayed individual Muslims as
crafty, treacherous, and greedy.
Yet a thorough survey of Malaterra's depiction of Muslims reveals just how
inconsistent his attempt to disparage them actually was. To suggest that he simply
divided them between "good Saracens" who allied with his patron, Roger I, and "bad
Saracens" who resisted the count, would be a crude overgeneralization, but such a
statement would not be all that far from the truth. At the very least, Malaterra did not
depict Muslim behavior as especially worse than that of Christians, but showed, rather,
that the two groups could share many of the same vices and virtues.
Sometimes, Malaterra denigrated specific Muslim characters by associating them
with betrayal or deceit. One example of this theme can be found in Malaterra's
The historian's concerns could reflect the greater interest shown toward personal beliefs and
matters of inward spirituality during his time. Whereas none of the three earlier chroniclers expressed ideas
about forced conversion of the Muslims of Sicily, Hugo Falcandus repeatedly addressed the issues of
conversion and apostasy. Cf. Metcalfe, The Muslims ofMedieval Italy, 160. "Nor was the central
Mediterranean region untouched by conceptual shifts over the nature of religious inspired hostility, in part
stimulated by the preaching of Bernard of Clairvaux, as the physical focus on the Holy Land and the
capture and defence of Jerusalem broadened to include personal disposition towards faith and the
potentially heretical attitudes of those other beliefs."
48
description of how Benarvet, the Sicilian leader in charge of the last Muslim resistance to
the Normans, committed an act offraus to gain an advantage over his enemies. In that
case, the author clearly connected the act of betrayal to the antagonist's Saracen identity.
Malaterra described Benarvet as hostile to the Christian name {christiano nomini
infestus), very shrewd {callidissimus), and crafty {subdolus), willing to say one thing
while keeping another hidden inhis heart.204 By offering many gifts, Benarvet solicited
the help of Benthumen, apaganus whom Count Roger had left in charge of the city of
Catania.205 This Benthumen treacherously allowed Benarvet and many of his men to
enter the city at night (fraudulenter de nocte).206 Malaterra called the betrayal wicked
trickery {nefandafraus), and explained that the perpetrator appropriately lived up to his
907
pagan name: "paganus vero nominis sui competens imitator." He thus implied that
faithlessness was to be expected from someone who had no faith to begin with. When
the count's forces put Catania to siege, Benthumen and Benarvet fled in the night, leaving
their soldiers behind.209 Later, rather than give Benthumen his promised rewards,
Benarvet beheaded him, lest he be betrayed in the same way by such a "paganus
traditor." Benthumen, who betrayed not only his lord, Roger, but also his own soldiers,
thereby received what he deserved.
204 Malaterra, Derebus gestis Rogerii, III.30, 75. "Aliud lingua proferens, aliud tacito pectore
occultando gerens." It is worth noting that calliditas was attributed to the qa 'id of Malta as well in ibid.,
IV.16, 95.
205 Metcalfe suggested thatthis Benthumen was a relative of Betumen (Ibn al-Thumna), the
Sicilian amir who invited Roger I to invade Sicily. Metcalfe, The Muslims ofMedieval Sicily, 135n.l3.
Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, III.30, 75. "Infra urbem ilium cum multitudine suorum
fraudulenter de nocte accipiens."
207 Malaterra, Derebus gestis Rogerii, III.30, 75.
208 Benarvet, the arch-villain ofthis text, again acted deceitfully in Malaterra, De rebus gestis
Rogerii, III.10, 62. In that episode, Benarvet laid an ambush that killed Count Roger's son-in-law, Hugh.
209
Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, III.30, 76.
49
In a similar episode involving treachery, the author again explicitly identified the
traitorous character as a Saracen. In that episode, Malaterra told how a "saracenus
quidam" by the name of Brachiem gainedthe trust of Serlo, the new Norman governor of
Castrogiovanni and the nephew of Count Roger. The Saracen exploited the confidence of
his Norman friend, and, as the author explained, became Serb's blood-brother {adoptivus
frater), but only in order to deceive him more easily (facilius deciperet).2U After offering
kind words and gifts, he lured Serlo into a deadly trap, supplying him with false
information about an impending attack.212 The Norman went out expecting to thwart a
small Arab raiding party of seven men, but instead encountered seven hundred knights
and two thousand foot soldiers. Tricked and outnumbered, he and his meager escort made
a valiant stand, but were quickly overwhelmed. Malaterra then went on to add that
Serb's attackers not only eviscerated him and sent his severed head to Africa, they also
ate his heart in the hopes of gaining their victim's courage {audacia). By linking these
Arabs {Arabici) with such a barbaric act as cannibalism, the author seems to have been
implying that these particular Saracens were almost inhuman.214 Moreover, the fact that
the author had Brachiem betray his own blood-brother made the act of traditio all the
more severe.215
211 Malaterra, Derebus gestis Rogerii, 11.46, 54. "Saracenus autem quidam, de potentioribus
Castri-Johannis, nomine Brachiem, cum Serlone, ut eum facilius deciperet, foedus inierat, eorumque more
per aurem adoptivum fratrem, alter alterum factum vicissim suspecerat."
212 Malaterra, Derebus gestis Rogerii, 11.46, 54. "Hie, traditione cum suis composita, Serloni
salutaria munuscula cum amicalibus verbis in dolo mandat, inter quae etiam intulit ista: "Sciat fraternitas
adoptivi mei, quod, tali vel tali die, septem tantummodo Arabici ex deliberatione jactantiae ad terram tuam
debent praedatum adire."
213 Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, 11.46, 54. "Serlone eviscerato, Saraceni cor extraxerunt;
utque audaciam eius, quae multa fuerat, conciperent, comedisse dicuntur."
214 Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, 11.46, 54.
215 It is interesting to note that Hugo Falcandus described a similar practice of blood brotherhood
that he described as uniquely Sicilian. Falcandus, Liber, 10.
50
In other cases of betrayal, though, the author sometimes chose to ignore
opportunities to depict the Saracens in a negative light, and failed even to mention that
the betrayers were non-Christian. Take, for example, the indifference that Malaterra
displayed toward Saracen identity in describing the death of Betumen, an amir of Sicily
who had allied himself to Count Roger. In the text, Betumen proved to be such a tireless
advocate of Roger's cause that his own people eventually murdered him. This happened
when Nichel, the ruler of Entella, invited the amir to a meeting, sending him words of
peace. The town of Entella had formerly belonged to Betumen, and, according to
Malaterra, he had once granted it many benefices. Not suspecting any deceit {fraus),
Betumen agreed to the invitation, believing that those he once treated well would now
willingly submit to him, unaware as he was of the plot {consilium) in Nichel's "poisonous
heart {venenoso corde).,,2ie When Betumen arrived at the meeting place, the people of
Entella first slew his horse to prevent any chance of escape, knocked him to the ground,
and then finished him off. Having been unhorsed, Roger's principal ally on the island
thus died a particularly ignoble death in terra at the hands of those once subject to his
authority. As for the men of Entella, they had shown their willingness to betray a member
of the Sicilian nobility, an amir at that, and even one who had formerly been their lord.
In this tale of treachery, however, Malaterra never actually identified Nichel,
Betumen, or his murderers as Saracens. Betumen's name (a Latinized form of Ibn al-
Thumna), and title {admiraldus) were the only clues the author ever gave of the man's
Saracen identity.217 The chronicler made no effort to describe the betrayal as somehow
216 Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, 11.22.

217 Ibn al-Thumna (d. 1062), qa'id of eastern Sicily, is attested to in Arabic sources. In reality, he
defeated and killed the ruler of Catania, Ibn al-Maklati, and married the latter's wife. Ibn al-Thumna later
entered into a conflict with his brother-in-law, Ibn al-Hawwas, and sought military assistance from the
51
imbued with specifically "Saracen" characteristics. It would seem that he willingly let an
opportunity for an anti-Muslim diatribe slip past him. Since the author showed no
reluctance to criticize them elsewhere, the simplest explanation is that, aside from a few
instances of blustering rhetoric, the author was basically indifferent to the Saracens as a
people and aware of Count Roger's relationship with them. He kept in mind the fact that
his patron frequently negotiated with Muslims, and so he did not always try to denigrate
them. Although he might slip into polemic from time to time, in this instance he simply
did not feel the need to do so.
As another example, Malaterra devoted an entire chapter to describing how the
people of lato resorted to artes andfraus when they chose to rebel against the Normans,
but did not identify the treacherous foes as Muslim. The inhabitants of that town,
Malaterra explained, were situated atop a mountain and took advantage of their strategic
position to hold off Roger's forces for many months. Although the citizens were indeed
Muslim, Malaterra made no indication of this, and referred to them only as Jatenses.
Still, as enemies of the count, he implicated them in a bit of cunning. He reported that the
people of lato exploited the fact that there was only a single road up the mountain to their
town, and that they hid their herds and flocks in secret caves in the mountain to protect
them from the pillaging enemy. In the end, though, as harvest time approached, Roger
destroyed their crops, leaving them crippled. After several months of fighting, the people
Normans. Metcalfe, TheMuslims ofMedieval Italy, 84-85; Houben, Roger II: A Ruler between East and
West, 14-15.
lato remained predominantly Muslim into the thirteenth century. Julie Anne Taylor, Muslims in
Medieval Italy: The Colony at Lucera (Lanham: Lexington Books, 2003), 8.
Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, III.20. The practice of cave dwelling was common to the
Berbers of north Africa. Rural Sicilians sometimes used caverns for shelter from cold winters and hot
summers. Houben, Roger II: A Ruler between East and West, 13.
52
were drained of strength, and they ultimately settled a treaty with the count and put aside
their "defenses of deceit (fraudis munimenta)."
Although it is noteworthy that Malaterra again chose to connect fraus with
Roger's enemies, it should come as no surprise that he opted against attacking, or even
mentioning, their Muslim identity. As is apparent from the examples provided so far, the
author only haphazardly engaged in polemic against the Saracens. Again, the most likely
explanation for this inconsistency hinges on the many pragmatic relationships that
Malaterra's patron entered into with Muslims. For Roger I, as for Malaterra, the Saracens
were not always the enemy. Some were indeed fierce opponents of the count, but some
were also his friends and allies. Both the historian and his patron pursued a pragmatic
policy toward the Muslims that was far more complex than simply categorizing them all
as evil adversaries.
It is also important to note that Malaterra did not restrict his use of these
expressions to the Muslims. Every one of the terms for deceit and fickleness mentioned
99 1
above appear in descriptions of other groups, even the Normans. This is not to say that
such words did not carry a strong negative connotation. Most of the time, Malaterra was
careful not to apply these terms to his own patron, and reserved them primarily for the
count's rivals. Other Normans, including the count's immediate family, were fair game—
when they violated Roger's trust.222 Occasionally, though, craftiness and ambition could

Albu, TheNormans in their Histories, 4. "The Norman hero appears as trickster as often as
warrior."
22 Forinstance, when describing how Count Roger's son, Jordan, plotted against him, he used
forms of decipio, callidus, andfraus in much the same way that he had in writing about the Saracen enemy.
Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, III.36, 78. Malaterra wrote that Jordan cleverly deceived many men:
"plures callide cirumveniendo." He then carried out a plot: "consilio peracto." The people he deceived were
described as "deceptis." At last, he revealed his treachery by usurping the citadels of St. Mark and
Mistretta, and pillaged the region: "Nam castrum Sancti Marci et Mistrectam sibi usurpans, detecta fraude,
53
be positive qualities, and, in a few cases, Malaterra used words for treachery when
99^
writing favorably about his patron as well as the gens Normanorum generally.
On the whole, it would appear that Malaterra did not regard the traits of
inconstancy and treachery as peculiar to the Saracens. With that said, almost all of the
phrases mentioned above seem to have borne a negative connotation. Callidus and
dissimulare were virtually the only terms of deception shared by Normans and Muslims
that could carry any positive meaning. The others, although not confined to the Saracens,
were used when describing enemies of the count. It is safe to say that the author
recognized that Normans had at least as much of a proclivity toward deceit and
inconstancy as their Muslim adversaries, and that he did not hesitate to abuse them when
they betrayed his patron.
In a somewhat similar manner, the twelfth-century historian Hugo Falcandus
described numerous Muslim characters who engaged in treachery against the Sicilian
monarchy. As seen above, for this author, the worst Muslims were those who feigned
praedas per totam provinciam ibidem introducit." When Count Roger's vassals learned about thefraus,
they tried to prevent Jordan's hostile attacks: "Nam fideles comitis, fraude comperta, simul convenientes,
hostiliter accedentem eum ab ipsis finibus arcent." As another example, at the siege of Durazzo, Robert
Guiscard entered into afraus with the Venetian commander there, and thus gained the city "per
traditionem." Ibid., 111.28, 74. Malaterra stated that the duke and the Venetian communicated through
intermediaries rather than face-to-face meetings, lest their plot be discovered: "aliquando, sed rarius per se,
aliquando per alios, ne forte fraus ab aliis inter ipsos componi depraehenderetur." Robert Guiscard
promised the Venetian his niece, and soon entered the city: "mox per traditionem urbem subintrandi."
Robert had also tried to take control of Capua through both cunning and force: "multarum artium et
virium." Ibid., IV.26, 104. Robert's son, Bohemond, organized the traditio of Cosenza, luring its citizens
"ad fraudem." Ibid., IV. 10. The Normans did not escape from the vice of levitas either: Mihera Falloc, a
Norman lord who allied with Bohemond against Roger Borsa, was described as "vir magnae levitatis," not
unlike Bechus. Ibid., IV.9, 90.
He wrote, for example, that the Normans left their homeland to make a profit, "spe alias plus
lucrandi." Malaterra, De rebusgestis Rogerii, 1.3, 8. He also indicated that they were at least as crafty as
the Saracens, being prepared to conceal or pretend anything and knowing how to use flattery: "cuiuslibet
rei simulatrix ac dissimulatrix . . . gens adulari sciens." Ibid. Also, Roger, like Benarvet, was identified as
"consilio callidus." Ibid., 1.19, 19. Pierre Toubert noticed this too, suggesting that "leur princeps Benarvet
(Ibn al-Werd), est qualifie" de 'callidissimus', terme tres fort et rich de sens dans la vocabulaire malaterrien
du type id£al du h6ros normand." Pierre Toubert, "La premiere historiographie de la conquete normande de
l'ltalie meridionale (Xf siecle)," 37.
54
Christianity, and, in that regard, the palace eunuchs associated with the royal court
received the brunt of his attacks.224 Yet this group not only oppressed Christians and
99 S
encouraged apostasy, they were also guilty of sedition. He accused one of these
officials, qa 'id Peter, of betraying the Norman garrison in North Africa, while other
eunuchs spied on the king on behalf ofthe Almohads.226 Following Peter's eventual
defection to North Africa, Falcandus had one of his Christian characters reflect that it had
been madness in the first place to promote a Muslim slave who had already betrayed one
military expedition, and a miracle that the qa 'id had not tried to let Almohads into the
997
palace or carry off the king.
As for Malaterra, the remainder of his invective portrayed Muslims more like
99R
greedy pirates than tricksters. During one Saracen raid, the author described how a
group of Africani—here Malaterra did not fail to add that they were "ergo Saraceni"—
sailed to Nicotera, catching the people unaware during the feast of St. Peter. They
attacked in the manner of pirates, "piratarum more," coming in the night and killing the
224 Most of these men were acquired in foreign slave markets or taken as prisoners in war. They
adopted a Christian name upon their baptism, and many held the title of qa 'id. Their close access to the
king meant that they were capable of possessing incredible power. Metcalfe, The Muslims ofMedieval
Italy, 193-195.
Falcandus placed eunuchs at the head of three separate conspiracies. Falcandus, Liber, c. 10,
27; c. 14, 50; c. 26, 93.
226 Falcandus, Liber, c. 10, 25-27.
Falcandus, Liber, c. 14, 47. Falcandus's other vituperations included a statement that the
eunuchs had a "rather disgraceful spirit and awareness of their crimes (flagitiosus animus ac scelerum
conscientia)," and a remark that the king had not made a sound decision in allowing "contemptible men,
nay rather, effeminate men (viros contemptibiles, immo deviratos homines)" to govern the realm.
Falcandus, Liber, c. 14, 47; c. 16, 96.
Malaterra was the only one of the five authors to stress greediness among Muslims. Amatus
and Hugo Falcandus made only two vague implications of greed. See Amatus of Montecassino, Storia,
1.15. This description of the aftermath of Manzikert was the closest the monk ever came to accusing the
Saracens of avarice. Here he reported that the Byzantines bribed the Turks to betray and capture the
Norman mercenary Roussel of Bailleul. While the author may have implicated these particular Muslims in
a Byzantine plot, in doing so he chose not to condemn them explicitly because of it. Hugo Falcandus on the
other hand described the court archers, who were Muslim, as opportunistic Falcandus, Liber, c. 55, 157.
"Sagitarii curie, qui nunquam in seditionibus ubi lucri spes appareat ultimi consueverunt occurrere."
55
990
citizens in their sleep while they were still drunk from their celebration. Having set fire
to the nearby fortress, the Saracens carried their prisoners, including women and children,
back to the ships along with their loot.230 On the following day, Malaterra added, they
returned to the shore and ransomed some of their captives, but kept those they thought
9^ 1
would be useful.
In this case, Malaterra seems to have been implying that Muslims could be a
shrewd and unscrupulous people driven by greed. It is however true that, since the
Saracen raid involved taking advantage of a Christian celebration, the author did make
their act appear somewhat sacrilegious as well. Yet he did not emphasize the timing of
their attack as a particularly profane act, and for the most part just made these Africani
seem opportunistic. They came under the cover of darkness, looting and kidnapping, and
acting more like cowardly bandits than either soldiers or evil fanatics. Although the
fortress posed something of a military target, the author made it clear that the Saracens
aimed primarily at gaining pretium and praeda—plunder and wealth.
There are three other examples of this greediness contained in Malaterra's text.
The author recalled that, in the year following the above raid, the Africani returned to
Italy "plus necessario cupidine avaritiae insolentes," but said that this time they were
repulsed by Count Roger's forces. Thus the Saracens were lured into defeat by allowing
themselves to succumb to their greed. At another place in the story, the author made a
Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, III.8. "Africani ergo Saraceni. . . navibus paratis, piratarum
more ... in vigilia Sancti Petri, apud Nicotrum de nocte apulsi, cives incautos et, prae gaudio instantis
solemnitatis, vino ex more somnoque gravatos, irruentes opprimunt, semisomnes alios perimunt, alios
capiunt."
Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, III.8. "Alios capiunt, ipsos etiam pueros cum mulieribus,
omnique suppellectili vehibili praedam navibus inducunt, castrumque totum incendio concremantes, remige
accelerato, in altum recedunt."
Malaterra, De rebusgestis Rogerii, III.8. "In crastinum, ripae proprius accedentes, pueros et
imbecilliorem familiam amicis redimere volentibus, pretio accepto, navibus eicientes, partim exonerantur;
reliquos, qui alicuius utilitatis videbantur, adducunt."
56
point of explaining that the Arabici and Africani who came to assist their coreligionists in
Sicily did so "causa lucrandi," rather than out of any sense of moral obligation. Later,
in writing about Benthumen's surrender of Catania, he was careful to note that the
Saracen had been blinded by his greed {avaritia coecatus) and had forgotten his oaths to
the count.233
This is not to say that the author singled out the Saracens as somehow more
avaricious than other groups, however. Much like the terms used for treachery and
fickleness, Malaterra's terms for avarice appeared among non-Muslims too. Though he
never used the term avaritia with reference to a Norman, he did call them a gens
dominationis avida and identified Roger himself as dominationis avidus, both of which
9^4 •
relate to a kind of greed. Avaritia, on the other hand, was applied to a Venetian
TIC
commander as well as to the inhabitants of Rome. As for the verb lucrari, Malaterra
stated that Robert Guiscard was motivated by "that hope of profit {spes ea lucrandi)"
9^ f\
during the siege of Bari in 1071. The author also noted that spes lucrandi drew the
Normans to Italy in the first place, and that the sons of Tancred were drawn to Capua
9^7
"causa militariter aliquid lucrandi."
William of Apulia, by comparison, made no mention of Muslims as tricksters, and
only at one point did he imply that they were greedy. According to him, as the battle of
Manzikert (1071) turned against the Greeks, Emperor Romanus ordered his men to

33 Malaterra, Derebus gestis Rogerii, III.30, 75.
234 Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, 1.3, 8; II.l, 29.
235 Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, IV.28, 74; IV.38, 81.
Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, 11.40, 49. On the siege of Bari, which lasted three years, see
G. Ravegnani, / bizantini in Italia (Bologna: Mulino, 2004), 202.
237 Malaterra, Derebus gestis Rogerii, 1.3; 1.6.
1.6.
57
9^8
scatter coins around the camp in order to distract the enemy when they arrived. The
ploy worked, although it did not, in the end, save the emperor. When the "Persae" arrived
at the Byzantine camp, William wrote that they allowed many soldiers to escape because
9^0
they were "plures praedae quam militibus feriendis intenti." Since this was the only
time that William associated any Muslim characters with avarice, it seems likely that he
was simply interested in describing a battlefield tactic and not trying to depict these
Turkish soldiers as unusually greedy.240

While Amatus's Muslims were neither greedy nor treacherous, he did associate
them with the sin of pride. For example, he explained that the Normans who defended
Salerno wanted to fight not for money, but because they found the pride of the Saracens
intolerable {non pooient soustenir tant superbe de li Sarrazin). Similarly, in his
account of the Byzantine expedition to Sicily under General George Maniakes, the author
reflected that the stubborn bad behavior {protervite) of the Saracens could not be
overcome with a weak hand (a double insult aimed at both the Byzantines and the
949
Muslims). Fortunately for Maniakes, a contingent of Norman mercenaries
accompanied the Greeks, and, through their help, the imperial forces were able to win a
victory over the Saracens. According to Amatus, the pride {superbe) of the vanquished
238 William ofApulia, 111.36^40. That is, Emperor Romanus IV Diogenes, who ruled from 1068
until shortly after his defeat at Manzikert in August 1071. This engagement, fought between Byzantine
forces under the command of the emperor and Seljuk Turks led by Alp Arslan, occurred in eastern Anatolia
and resulted in a decisive Turkish victory. After his release from captivity, Romanus was deposed and
replaced by Michael VII Ducas. On this battle, see Steven Runciman, A History ofthe Crusades: The First
Crusadeand the Foundationofthe Kingdom ofJerusalem (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1951),
63-65. C. Cahen, "La premiere penetration turque en Asie-Mineure (seconde moitie du XP siecle),"
Byzantion 18 (1948): 5-67.
If that were the poet's message, he certainly would not have mentioned Alp Arslan's
subsequent generosity and honorable treatment of his Christian captives in such exquisite detail. The
strategy of scattering loot to facilitate retreat and distract an advancing enemy was a legendary element that
also appeared in the heroic legends of the Danes. Mathieu, introduction to Gesta, 52n2.
242 Amatus of Montecassino, Storia, II. 8, 66.
58
foe was afterward strewn about the battlefield.243 Later on in the text, when the author
had Robert Guiscard looking back on his life and reciting his many ordeals, he made sure
to include mention of the "superbe de li Sarrazin, fame, et molt tribulation" that he had
endured overseas.244
Though not explicitly religious, the vice of pride that this author attached to the
Muslims may have stemmed from what he took to be their arrogant rejection of Christ.245
Excessive confidence in one's own power was a way of incurring divine wrath.246 In that
respect, such accusations are similar to some of Malaterra's more zealous passages in
which he criticized Muslim warriors for the self-reliant attitude that so offended God. The
similarity between the two writers cannot be stretched too far, though, because, whereas
the Muslims in Amatus's history might have appeared faithless and proud, they never
behaved treacherously like the Muslims in Geoffrey Malaterra's narrative.
On the contrary, Amatus's Sicilians tended to fall victim themselves to Norman
deceit. At the siege of Palermo, the "maliciouz" Norman soldiers lured some of the
starving inhabitants outside the city with bread, then captured and enslaved them.247 At
another point, after travelling by night and then laying an ambush, Count Roger and his
men fell upon a Saracen convoy carrying supplies for the defense of Messina.248
According to Amatus, the Normans killed everyone, including the qa 'id in charge of the
243 Amatus of Montecassino, Storia, II. 8, 68.

244 Amatus of Montecassino, Storia, VII.27, 321.
However, the Cassinese historian also attributed pride to the Lombards. For example, superbe
appeared with reference to the Lombards in six places. Amatus of Montecassino, Storia, 1.43, 43; 11.13, 70;
IV.34; IV.38, 209 (twice); VIII. 10, 351. Arrogance occured in three places. Ibid., IV.27, 201; IV.34; IV.37.
Amatus attributed it to the Byzantines as well, interpreting their defeat in one battle to their
excessive confidence—they put more faith in themselves than in God. Amatus of Montecassino, Storia,
11.26.
247 Amatus ofMontecassino, Storia, VI. 17, 278-279. William ofApulia, on the other hand, left
this anecdote out of his version of the event. Cf. William of Apulia, Gesta, III.211-224.
The Old French adjective malicios could mean wicked, clever, or smart. Adolf Tobler and Erhard
Lommatzch,Altfranzosisches Worterbuch, vol. 5 (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1963), 992.
59
baggage train.249 Later, when Robert Guiscard sent an envoy fluent in Arabic to visit the
city of Palermo, he cleverly ordered the man to feign ignorance of the language so that he
might spy on the city.250

In passages where he did not describe Normans deceiving Muslims, Amatus
frequently depicted the latter group as wholly unable to defend themselves. Unlike
Malaterra, this author glossed over the difficulties of an arduous thirty-year campaign and
rarely described his Christian protagonists struggling at all in their protracted conflict
with the Saracens. Often, Amatus even robbed his Muslim characters of the opportunity
to die gloriously in combat. Instead, the Saracens proved to be such easy prey that they
frequently found themselves captured and enslaved. For example, Amatus reported that a
group of soldiers who sallied forth to defend Palermo were caught and sold by the
surrounding Norman knights. At Castrogiovanni, Count Roger invited the Saracens to

9 S9
combat, then captured thirty of them, killing just fifteen. Amatus also found it
noteworthy that Duke Robert endowed Montecassino with not just riches and mules, but
with "li Sarrazin", who were "his slaves {serve sien)." According to him, no one could
reckon how many Saracens had been killed, seized, or sold.254 Yet aside from the variety
of essentially negative portrayals described above, it is nevertheless important to
recognize that Amatus did include a number of fairly ambivalent depictions of Muslims
in his narrative, from his descriptions of Betumen to his mention of the Muslim soldiers
who fought for Robert Guiscard.

51 Amatus of Montecassino, Storia, VI.16.
52 Amatus of Montecassino, Storia, VI.16.
53 Amatus of Montecassino, Storia, VIII.36, 375.
254 Amatus of Montecassino, Storia, VI.22, 285.
60
None of these writers, therefore, viewed greed, betrayal, or cunning as uniquely
Saracen attributes, and there seems to be an overall lack of consistent stereotyping at
work. Hugo Falcandus, whose work revolved around internecine court conspiracies and
rebellions, did see the Muslims as treacherous, but also as one of only several groups
threatening the stability of the nascent monarchy. For other writers, what made the
Saracens exceptional—and then only at certain moments—was their religion. Although
Malaterra did treat the Muslims as enemies of God, he did so at just a handful of points.
At very specific places—for example, at the battle of Cerami, when Roger was facing a
Muslim enemy—the chronicler proved himself willing to make use of religious invective
to cast the count's enemies in a negative light. In other words, only on a few occasions,
when denigrating the Saracens would glorify his patron, did the author engage in
polemic. Amatus too described the Saracens as sinful, but did not make them out to be
truly evil. More often, both Amatus of Montecassino and Geoffrey Malaterra displayed
a surprising level of neutrality toward the Saracens.
Positive and Ambivalent Portrayals of Muslims
Aside from his portrayal of certain Saracens as faithless, greedy, or treacherous,
Malaterra revealed a certain interest in their commitment to honor. Although they might
be a hostile people, he occasionally delved into greater detail about their martial prowess
and willingness to die for their beliefs than one might expect from a monastic Christian
author. Malaterra seemed almost to appreciate the Muslims' dedication to their religion,
occasionally noted their daring in battle, and at several points apparently reveled in the
255 This is especially clear from the fact that Amatus never associated the Muslims with the devil.
He did do this, however, for individual Lombards, for which see chapter three.
61
fact that they found death a better alternative to apostasy. Much of this undoubtedly
9S6
stemmed from the author's need to supply his protagonists with a worthy adversary.
For example, Malaterra described how one ruler's failure to respect his subjects
and willingness to needlessly dishonor them led to his downfall. According to the author,
the commander at Castronovo, Bechus, was known for his levitas, or fickleness. As the
story unfolded, the inconstancy and cruelty of this "quidam saracenus" led to his own
9 S7
downfall, beginning when Bechus chose one day to whip the local miller. While
pretending {dissimulans) to bear the dishonor {dehonestatio), Malaterra wrote, the miller
secretly set about plotting against his lord through artifice {artibus). He sent a message to
Count Roger, promising support and inviting him to attack. When Roger's forces arrived,
the miller lowered a rope over the walls and helped them take the fortress. Terrified,
Bechus fled, and, in return for his aid, the miller received many gifts from the count, who
9S8
hoped to encourage similar tricks {artes) among his enemies.
Superficially, it might seem that a subtext of treachery among the Muslims hangs
over the entire chapter, yet on closer inspection it becomes evident that Malaterra
directed his criticism at Bechus alone. Malaterra condemned only him as cruel and
violent, a ruler who got what he deserved. The author did not criticize the miller for
betraying his lord, but suggested rather that the man had behaved appropriately.
Malaterra's criticism was thus reserved for Bechus, whom he accused of levitas. The
miller, on the other hand, employed artes, not fraus (a stronger word, which as shown
above, the author used only for truly heinous acts). Malaterra understood the importance
256 Toubert wrote that "A 1'inverse de celle du grec, 1'image du musulman est. . . celle d'un
guerrier de valeur." Pierre Toubert, "La premiere historiographie de la conquete normande de lTtalie
meridionale (XIe siecle)," 37.
257 Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, III. 12.
258 Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, III. 12.
62
that Sicilian society placed on honor, and recognized that an act of dishonor—such as an
unwarranted public beating—demanded vengeance.
In a similar way, Malaterra also went into detail concerning Muslim commitment
to their "lex"—Islam. He told how the men of Palermo agreed to relinquish their city to
Roger only if it did not entail surrendering their religion: "legem suam nullatenus se
violari vel relinquere velle dicentes."259 The author, furthermore, repeatedly explained the
custom of swearing oaths on the Qu'ran. In five cases—after the fall of Rometta, after the
fall of Palermo, during negotiations with a fleet from North Africa, after the surrender of
Malta, and when a treaty was made between Ifriqiya and Pisa—he described Muslims
960
taking pledges according to their religion, or "sub ostentantione legis suae."
Malaterra also showed that, for the people of Sicily, death was preferable to
apostasy. Indeed, a man who converted to Christianity was killed "a sua gente hostiliter"
9A1
for refusing to return to Islam. After the fall of Messina, a certain youth killed his only
sister, a tenuis virguncula, to prevent her from falling victim to Norman violation and
becoming "legis suae praevaricatrix."262 Although Malaterra might have dismissed the
Qu'ran as a book of superstition, he nevertheless recognized the reverence it commanded
among its adherents.
One final example of the author's interest in this people's commitment to honor
and willingness to sacrifice can be found in his account of Roger's siege of Messina,
which took place during the count's first, abortive, expedition into Sicily. Here, the
citizens, though few in number, eagerly {certatim) defended the walls and ramparts of the
Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, 11.45, 53.

260
Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, IV.3, 87.
261
262
Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, II.l 1, 33. Cf. Wolf, Making History, 160. Wolf suggested
that this episode was meant to appeal to a courtly audience.
63
city. Malaterra said that they fought "pro vita" alongside their women {cum ipsis
96^
mulieribus). Even more astonishing, the defense worked. Thwarted, the Normans
abandoned their siege and returned to Italy. Since he chose to include an episode in which
his patron was bitterly defeated, there was little Malaterra could do in the way of
glorifying the count other than to whitewash the aftermath of the event—Roger's
withdrawal to Italy—as a prudent retreat. The author included no trace of invective here,
religious or otherwise, and identified the city's defenders only as Messanenses. There is
only one truly compelling explanation as to why the author would want to mention such a
disastrous affair at all: Malaterra found the episode too impressive, and the reckless
daring of the Saracens too noteworthy, to leave out of the narrative altogether.264
Most of the time, however, this author portrayed the Saracens not as enemies of
God nor as brave warriors, but instead treated them with indifference. Malaterra
employed terms of religious invective to describe Muslims a total of only eighteen times,
while onseventy-nine occasions he used much blander terminology.265 Inthose cases, he
called them Saraceni, cives, incola, Sicilienses, Africani, orArabici266 For example,
263Malaterra, Derebus gestis Rogerii, II.6.

Malaterra provided a similar example when discussing the Muslim defense of Centuripe
against the Normans. He wrote that the inhabitants did not fear death and did not want to be thrown into
servitude: "Mori tamen non abhorrentes, cum nullo modo servire volunt, in defensione urbis et sua
propugnacula armant." They resisted, and the Normans were again repelled as at Messina. Malaterra, De
rebus gestisRogerii, 11.15. Compare this depiction of the Muslims as worthy adversaries to William of
Apulia's account of the defense of Palermo, where the Muslims "wentto the battle like men, firmly
resolved either to live or to die {Adpugnam veniunt subcondicione virili I Ut quo iure virivel vivant vel
moriantur)r William of Apulia, Gesta, III.233—234.
265 Pagani appeared in: Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, 11.32, 42; 11.33 44; 11.33, 45 (twice);
III.30, 75 (twice); III.30, 76 (twice); IV.24. There were ten other instances in which Malaterra made
reference to their religion: ibid., II.l, 29 {gens Deo ingrata); II.l, 29 {siciliam incredulam); 11.13 (libris
superstitionis); 11.33, 44 (gens Deo rebellis); 11.35, 46 (gens Deo rebellis); 11.41, 50 (Malaterra's Robert
Guiscard stated that a new Muslim leader was eiusdem religionis); III.16 (Islam referred to as a
superstitio); IV.2, 86 (Benarvet threw himself to his death instinctu diaboli); IV.6 (Chamut, a Sicilian
leader, gave up his warlike ways upon his conversion to Christianity); IV.7, 90 (incredula gens).
266 Malaterra referred to Muslims as incola in: Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, 11.36, 47; III. 16;
IV.16, 95. He called them cives in: ibid., 1.7, 11; II.l, 29; 11.11, 32; 11.36, 47 (twice); III.11,63; 111.12; IV.6
(not counted because they were said to have had Christian captives and cannot therefore be considered
64
Malaterra referred to the people of Messina and the people of lato, both enemies of Count
Roger, as "Messanenses" and "Jatenses," without using any words that would even tell
the reader they were Muslim. When describing Benarvet's rampage in Calabria, the
author called the raiders nothing more than a navalis exercitus, and reserved his
deprecations for Benarvet alone.267 Yet evidence of Malaterra's dispassionate attitude

took other forms as well. Aside from the ambivalent names that the author often applied
to the Saracens, he also included episodes in which the Muslims were not depicted as
enemies, but rather as partners of the count.
There are several places in Malaterra's story where Saracen soldiers made an
appearance fighting in the count's armies. These came at the end of the text, after the
death of Robert Guiscard, when Roger sent forces to the mainland to support his nephew,
Roger Borsa, as the new duke of Apulia. Malaterra described the count's response to
the call for help against rebels in Cosenza by saying that he summoned "ab omni Sicilia
multa Saracenorum millia." The author said Roger Borsa's own army included "multa
millia Saracenorum a Sicilia et Calabria."270 Shortly thereafter, Malaterra added that
Saraceni comprised the "maxima pars" of the force that the count sent from Italy to assist
971
his nephew. Nowhere in this discussion of the Apulian campaign did the author see fit
to include any deprecation of the Muslim soldiers. Aside from these ambivalent
neutral language); IV.16, 95 (also disregarded because they were said to have had Christian prisoners);
IV. 18, 98. They were identified according to their city name in: ibid., 1.7, 11; II.6 (twice); 11.13 (twice);
11.14; 11.15, 33; 11.36, (twice); 11.37 (twice); II. 45, 53; 111.20 (four times); IV.12 (twice); IV.15, 93. With
the exception of the title comes Siculorum, one passage in which the word sicilienses was used with
invective ("condensitatem inimicorum paganorom ac Siciliensium" in ibid., 11.33, 44) and the passage in
which the Africans were described as Africani ergo Saraceni(ibid., III.8), there were twenty-two non-
religious references to Sicilians, Africans, and Arabs.
267 Malaterra, Derebus gestis Rogerii, IV. 1.
268 Roger Borsa, son ofRobert Guiscard, ruled as duke ofApulia from 1085 to 1111. Mathieu,
introduction to Gesta, 11.
269 Malaterra, Derebus gestis Rogerii, IV. 17, 96.
270 Malaterra, Derebus gestis Rogerii, IV.22, 100.
271 Malaterra, Derebus gestis Rogerii, IV.26, 104
65
descriptions of anonymous Muslims serving in Roger's armies, Malaterra also mentioned
Saracen rulers who cooperated with the count.
Among the various Muslim leaders who made an appearance in the De rebus
gestis Rogerii, King Themin of North Africa stood out for receiving especially neutral
treatment at the hands of Malaterra. This likely reflects the political realities of the late
eleventh century, when Count Roger had entered into diplomatic relations with Zirid
Ifriqiya.212 Inthe first friendly encounter between the two rulers, a Norman fleet
encountered a group of fourteen ships sailing off the coast of Sicily "ab Africa."
Although they traveled morepiratarum, they swore by their religion that they were under
orders from their king only to pursue pirates. They offered assistance to the count, who
invited them to meet with him and receive supplies. Soon after the Saracens accepted the
generous proposal, however, a wind rose up and took them back to sea before the
974
meeting could take place.
In comparison to some of the earlier passages, in which Malaterra portrayed
Roger as leader of the "Christianae militiae tyrones," this description seems

97S
remarkable. Although Malaterra did add tension to his account by making the reader at
first believe that pirates from North Africa were once again on the attack, he quickly
resolved the crisis by explaining that the sailors were "pacem portantes" and "inservire
97^
paratos." Not only did the author have Roger enter into a brief compact, or "foedere,"
with these Saracens, but he even reported that the count invited them "ad amicum
72 Metcalfe, The Muslims ofMedieval Italy, 128.

73 Malaterra, Derebus gestis Rogerii, III. 17, 66.
274 Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, III. 17, 67.
275Malaterra, Derebus gestis Rogerii, 11.33, 43.
66
colloquium."277 Thus Malaterra appears to have been rather comfortable tailoring his
descriptions of the gens Saracenorum to fit his patron's own political exigencies. As this
particular passage indicates, his antipathy for the Muslims may have been more
pragmatic than heartfelt.
Amatus of Montecassino could, at times, allow his ostensible dislike of the
Saracens to be more subdued as well. Especially when describing Muslims allied to the
Normans, the author's tone could become quite benign. He told how a group of Saracens
living in Calabria under Robert Guiscard's rule sought to prove their loyalty to the duke
by fighting against the "Pagan de Sycille."278 They and their Christian neighbors
launched a naval attack on the island, fought bravely, and returned after suffering some
970
losses. Later, when Robert went to war with the Lombard prince of Salerno, Amatus
980
noted that he summoned Saracens in addition to Latin and Greek soldiers.
That religious diversity continued to be a characteristic of Sicilian armies long
after the time that Amatus wrote can be seen in Alexander of Telese's history. This
twelfth-century text reveals, moreover, the strife that such a diverse military could
engender. Alexander mentioned Muslim soldiers taking part in the siege of Montepeloso
in 1133, for example, where they helped King Roger II successfully breach the fortress's
981
defenses. These troops were not always warmly regarded to say the least, as a quarrel

278 Amatus of Montecassino, Storia, V.l 1.
80 Amatus of Montecassino, Storia, VIII. 14, 354. "II assembla troiz turmez de troiz manieres de
gent: c'est de Latin, de Grex et de Sarrazin, et commanda que venissent molt de gent et de navie a garder lo
port."
Alexander of Telese, Ystoria, 11.42. "Interim autem, dum ita utrimque pugnaretur, Sarraceni per
illud instrumentum ligna, quibus fossatus repleretur, iactabant."
67
989
with Christians at Bari that led to several deaths indicates. Although this particular
author had relatively little to say about Muslims in general, none of his statements
contained any trace of invective. A tempting explanation for this is that Alexander of
TOT ,
Telese remained more consistently neutral than any of the other writers. King Roger
actually made far more frequent use of Muslim troops than Alexander indicated,
however, and his avoidance of this subject may reveal a great degree of historical
• i • 984
reticence on his part. He very well may have seen any serious discussion of Roger's
98*\
Saracen forces as an unwise and imprudent move. Yet, from what little he did mention
of relations between Muslims and Christians, it would seem that tensions between the
two were not unknown even in the era of the "multicultural" King Roger II.
Hugo Falcandus provided an even bleaker picture of the sectarian violence that
occurred in this period. He recorded a fight between Muslim and Christian soldiers in
which "a great many Saracens fell, with the Christians violently rushing upon them
Alexander of Telese, Ystoria, 11.34. According to the chronicler, a group of Christians killed
several Muslims who were sent to construct a fortress at Bari because they had killed a nobleman's son:
"Porro Regi inter hec Salerni moranti nuntiatur quod barenses cives ab eo se aversuros iam prepararent, eo
quod nonnullos saracenorum quos ibi ad munitionis sue delegaverat, ira commoti necaverant, quoniam
cuiusdam nobilis films ab eisdem ipsis sarracenis fuerat interemptus."
3Alexander ofTelese mentioned Muslims atjust one other place in his text, where he described
Bohemond's capture by the Turks, which occurred at the Battle of Melitene in 1100. In his rather murky
description of that event, the abbotmentioned onlythat the Norman commander was fiercely intercepted,
disarmed, and laterdied. Alexander of Telese, Ystoria, 1.12, 12-13. "He quippe urbes Boamundi imperii
fuerant, quas ipse omnemque terram suam, cum ad potiendum principatum Antiochie transmarinum peteret
iter, Apostolice prius ferturtutele commisisse. Verum ille eiusdem civitatis decoratus principali infula,
brevi intercapedine posita, in loco quo se tutum omnino cum suis fore putabat, subito a turcorum
interclusus acie, cum multis degladiatus finem vite dedit." This statement is misleading, since Bohemond,
who did spend nearly three years as prisoner of the Turks, was ultimately freed. Jonathan Riley-Smith, The
First Crusaders, 1095-1131 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 78.
284 Falco ofBenevento, who despised King Roger II, in fact provided a lengthy description ofthe
atrocities carried out by the Muslim soldiers in whatcan only be described as a reign of terrordirected
against the populace of southern Italy. If his biased account canbe taken as even remotely accurate, it
would certainly explain why Alexander of Telese, who was writing a paean to the king, proved so reluctant
to mention anything about the Saracen troops. Houben, Roger II, 47.
5The text's most recent editor, Ludovica de Nava, wrote that "v'e senza dubbio un certo sapore
insincero in alcune pagine diQ\Y Ystoria . . . l'autore non e riuscito a nascondere del tutto l'imbarazzo in cui
si trovava nei narrare certi episodi." De Nava, introduction to Ystoria, xliii.
68
986
(plurima Sarracenorum multitudo cecidit, acriter in eos irruentibus Christianis)."
Falcandus did not explain what caused the riot, but did add that the Christians did not
stop the killings even when the king threatened them and sent his officers to help the
Saracens.287 Another uprising at the royal palace that began with the targeted murders of
several eunuchs soon spilled out onto the streets of Palermo, leading to the wholesale
988 •
slaughter of Muslims in their homes and shops. Falcandus also reported that, in the
1160s, Lombard settlers began to make sudden attacks on neighboring Muslim
communities, killing those living alongside Christians as well as those living on their own
estates, without regard for age or sex.289 According to him, the Saracen dread for the
Lombard people afterward remained so strong that, at the time he was writing, not only
did they no longer live in that region, they also avoided going there altogether. Far
removed from the conventional image of Sicily as a kingdom of cosmopolitan

901
coexistence, Falcandus described vivid scenes of social unrest.
While the chroniclers characterized relations between Muslim and Christians on
Sicily as occasionally tense, they held a happier view of relations with foreign Muslim
rulers. In fact, Malaterra sometimes went so far as to portray Count Roger choosing
Saracen friendship over Christian friendship. He at one point discussed a war fought
between the King Themin and the Pisans, who invaded North Africa and captured its
Falcandus, Liber, c. 20.

287 Falcandus, Liber, c. 20.
Falcandus, Liber, c. 21, 70. "In loca finitima repentinos impetus facientes, tarn eos qui per
diversa oppida Christianis erant permixti, quam eos qui separatim habitantes villas proprias possidebant,
nullo sexus aut etatis habito discrimine, perimebant."
Falcandus, Liber, c. 21, 70. "Et usque nunc adeo Lombardorum gentem exhorrent, ut non
solem earn partem Sicilie deinceps habitare noluerint, verum etiam accessum eius omnino devitent."
291 The event is corroborated by Romuald ofSalerno. Siragusa, Liber de Regno Sicilie, 70n2. Cf.
positive portrayals of cultural synthesis in twelfth-century Sicily such as F. Giunta and U. Rizzitano, Terra
senza crociati: popoli e cultura nell Sicilia del Medioevo (Palermo: S. F. Flaccovio, 1967); Norwich, The
Kingdom in the Sun, 391.
69
principal city from the Muslims. Knowing that they lacked the ability to hold such a
strategic location, the Pisans offered it to Roger. The count, however, turned down the
proposal from his fellow Christians because "regi Thumino amicitiam se servaturum
909
dixerat." Malaterra went on to add that, by doing this, Roger was "legalitatem suam
9Q7
servans." The idea that legality {legalitas) could be proven by honoring an agreement
made with a Muslim ruler, a leader of the gens incredula, stands in sharp opposition to
the sentiments expressed elsewhere in the narrative.294 One wonders how the author
expected a people he elsewhere described as faithless to honor afoedus, a word rooted in
the concept of fides. Malaterra seems to have been, if anything, unconcerned with the
inconsistency, and was apparently quite capable of moving from hostile to more benign
depictions of the Saracens.
At the end of the episode, the author noted that Themin resolved his conflict with
the Pisans by buying peace from them. As part of the agreement, Themin released his
Christian captives. The Zirid ruler even went so far as to promise "sub ostentantione
legis suae" never to send warships into Christian territory again.296 Incredibly, here is a
portrait of a Saracen who behaved almost as though he were a good Christian king.
Malaterra's Themin honored his oath, treated his prisoners well, and appeared, overall,
i 297
quite rational.
92 Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, IV.3, 87.

Niemeyer Mediae Latinitatis Lexicon Minus, 593.
97 Such a depiction fits with Roger I's diplomatic relations with North Africa, which improved
considerably afterthe withdrawal of Zirid forces from Sicily. See Metcalfe, The Muslims ofMedieval Italy,
99. Metcalfe noted that "any lingering Zirid hostility had effectively been neutralised by diplomacy and
treaty sometime between 1068 .. . and the Pisan attack of 1087. . . The Normans' relations with overseas
Muslim powers were complex and delicate, yet, in many respects, they were more consistent and less
mutually threatening than relations with the German or Byzantine empires."
70
Writing nearly a century later, Hugo Falcandus portrayed another North African
ruler in similar terms. In his description of the surrender of a Norman garrison in Tunisia
to the Almohads, Falcandus depicted the Muslim leader as an honorable and humane
commander.298 When this Masmudorum rex potentissimus had learned that besieged
soldiers continued to resist in the face of starvation, he "regarded their courage,
astonished, and marveled at their bravery and perseverance {audaciam considerabat
attonitus eorumque virtutem et constantiam mirabatur)^ ' Like Malaterra, it would
appear that Falcandus recognized the values of a warrior culture that, like the Normans,
prized martial prowess as a virtue.
This chronicler went on to relate how the Muslim leader sent word to the
defenders, saying that he knew what they were enduring, and that he wished to spare
them out of respect for their bravery, then gave them the choice of either entering his
employ or returning to Sicily.300 The beleaguered knights asked permission to send a
messenger to their king before deciding, which was granted, and they thereby soon
discovered that no reinforcements were coming. When the Christian soldiers finally
surrendered, the ruler of the Almohads kept his word, furnished them with ships, and
^09
allowed them safe passage back across the sea. Much like Malaterra's Themin,
Falcandus portrayed this Almohad ruler acting with honor.
298 For historical background on the Norman presence inNorth Africa, see David Abulafia, "The
Norman Kingdom of Africa and the Norman Expeditions to Majorca and the Muslim Mediterranean,"
Anglo-Norman Studies 7 (1985): 26-49.
99 Falcandus, Liber, c. 10, 25-26. Historically, this "king" was the Almohad caliph 'Abd-al-
Mu'min (d. 1163), the principal opponent of the Norman presence in Africa. Metcalfe, The Muslims of
Medieval Italy, 160-174.
301 Falcandus, Liber, c. 10,27.
Falcandus, Liber, c. 10, 28. For more information on the fall of Norman Africa, see Metcalfe,
The Muslims ofMedievalItaly, 174-175. Metcalfe observed that the surrender of this garrison, stationed at
Mahdia, signaled the final failure of European plans to re-Christianize Africa. He also pointed out that, in
71
As for Malaterra, a similar example of his pragmatically neutral portrayal Muslim
rulers who had allied with his patron can be found in his depiction of Betumen, the amir
of Sicily originally responsible for inviting Roger to invade the island. Although
Betumen's actions made it abundantly clear that he was a traitor to his people, Malaterra
never identified him as such. On the contrary, he repeatedly stressed the man's loyalty,
OAT
calling him "fidus comes et ductor" and "vero in sua fidelitate." Nor did he ever even
identify him as a Saracen—not once did he use a word like Saracenus or paganus when
describing this amir. Instead, he chose to casually report how Betumen entered Roger's
service: Malaterra merely said that the man had killed his brother-in-law and was then
forced to become an exile (profugus), without offering any other commentary.304
Crossing the straits, Betumen came to Reggio, where the count welcomed him warmly
and soon responded to his call to attack Sicily. The author thereby placed responsibility
for the Norman takeover squarely on the shoulders of a native Muslim ruler, but chose to
ignore what would seem to be a grand opportunity to condemn the Saracens. Later, this
same amir acted as a guide for Roger's army, traveled throughout the land to make his
countrymen faithful to the Normans, and relentlessly fought those whom he was unable
to persuade. The author must have found himself in a delicate situation, writing about
one of Roger's principal Muslim allies, and thus made no mention of the man's Saracen
certain Arab sources, it was reported that King William I of Sicily had threatened the Almohad ruler with
the slaughter of Sicily's Muslim population if the Christian forces were not allowed to leave.
303 Malaterra, Derebus gestis Rogerii, 11.16; ibid., 11.18, 34.
304 Malaterra, Derebus gestis Rogerii, II.3.
Malaterra, De rebusgestis Rogerii, II.3. "Rogerius vero comes, duce relicto in Apulia, Regium
in prima septimana ante quadregesimam remeavit, ad quern Betumen, admiraldus Siciliae, a Belcamedo,
quodam principe, proelio fugatus, eo quod maritum sororis suae, honestum suae gentis juvenem, vocabulo
Benneclerum occiderat, apud Regium profugus, venit, comitem versus impugnationem Siciliae multis
exhorationibus excitans."
Malaterra, De rebusgestis Rogerii, 11.22. "Betumen vero per Siciliam vadens, sicuti a comite
rogatus fuerat, quoscumque poterat, ad fidelitatem nostrae gentis applicat; quibus vero minus persuadere
poterat, ipsos impugnationibus vexare non desistebat."
72
identity. Despite the clear evidence that Betumen behaved as a traitor, Malaterra injected
surprisingly little of his own commentary. Presumably, this owed much to the fact that,
historically, the amir had cooperated with Roger.
To an extent, Malaterra's image of Betumen parallels his mixed depiction of the
Muslims throughout the text. The image is confused, blurred somewhere between that of
a treacherous foreigner and that of a loyal ally. The author's multifaceted and at times
contradictory portrayal of the Muslims reveals that he was, above all, a pragmatist
compelled to describe these non-Christians with a measure of flexibility. There is some
evidence of a superficial kind of hostility in this source, but the chronicler did not (or
could not) carry it very far. Malaterra needed to balance the denigration of his patron's
Saracen adversaries with more neutral discussions of his patron's Saracen allies. Driven
by that necessity, his non-committal depiction of the Muslims is a result of the delicate
balance he strove to achieve.
Somewhat surprisingly, Amatus, writing on the mainland, portrayed Betumen in
much the same way as Malaterra. In his version, Betumen, amir of Palermo, was driven
from his city for no apparent reason. According to Amatus, Betumen went to "lo
christiennissime due Robert" seeking revenge, offered him his son as a hostage, and
entered into an alliance with him. When Betumen accompanied Robert's forces to
Sicily, the duke made certain that he was treated "honorablement."309 Amatus went on to
note that, under the amir's leadership, the Normans captured Rometta and mentioned him
Tin
a few chapters further on serving as a guide. This author, like Malaterra, distinguished
307 Amatus of Montecassino, Storia, V.8, 229.

310 Amatus of Montecassino, Storia, V.10, 232; ibid., V.22, 240.
73
between "good Muslims" and "bad Muslims," and clearly believed Benarvet belonged
among the former. He never denigrated the amir in any way, (nor even identified him as a
Saracen), but only ever depicted him as a loyal ally.
The antipathy that Amatus of Montecassino showed in his narrative, although
quite apparent in certain areas, was nonetheless tempered by his inclusion of a number of
less hostile characterizations. Aside from the examples already provided, it is noteworthy
that the ultimate failure of the Byzantine attempt to reconquer Sicily elicited only the
author's bland comment that "the Saracens recovered their lost heritage (//' Sarrazin
Oil
recouvrerent lor heritage qu 'il avoient perdu)." Amatus, who sometimes accused
Muslims of oppressing Christians, or associated them with pride and folly, more often
depicted them as cowardly, hapless targets of Norman warriors. It must further be
emphasized that, in his narrative, Saracens were implicated in far fewer acts of
aggression against Christians than in the texts of either William of Apulia or Geoffrey
Malaterra. Instead of functioning as diabolical villains, the Saracens primarily played the
role of the meek and easily-defeated enemies of Robert Guiscard. As seen above, this
author's treatment of them could even be surprisingly benign, especially in describing
Muslim soldiers in Norman armies and instances of cooperation between Christian and
Muslim leaders.
In the case of William of Apulia, it is important to recognize that the poet did not
always portray Sicilians or Turks as infidels. Aside from the siege of Palermo, the
311 Amatus ofMontecassino, Storia, 11.10, 69. At another point, in his account ofthe battle for
Centuripe, a city the Normans were unable to capture, Amatus included no invective other than to attribute
the indecisive outcome to the city walls rather than to the skill of the defenders. Similarly, Robert
Guiscard's capture of Catania passed with no invective, other than the author's comment that the duke left
forty men to guard against the city's "male volente." Ibid., VI.14, 276.Malaterra revealed a degree of
admiration for the stalwart defense of Centuripe as well. See above, note 264.
74
Sicilians made an appearance at four other places in William's epic, but in those cases he
chose to call them just Siculi and did not include the slightest hint of invective. Three
instances concern Byzantium's wars with Sicily in the 1030s and 1040s, decades before
the beginning of Roger's island campaign.312 The fourth instance of neutrality occurred in
a list of Amalfi's trading partners, who, according to the poet, included Arabes, Siculi,
and Afri. This topos of the locus amoenus, or charming place, was a way for William
to praise the value of this port, and William's purpose in mentioning the Muslims there
was simply to give a measure ofthe city's opulence.31 Thus, inthat case, he clearly had
no need for invective, but rather saw such far-flung trade relations as a mark of
distinction. Like Malaterra, it seems that William condemned the Sicilians only when
they were enemies of his protagonist.
Although William referred to the Turks elsewhere in the text, nowhere else did he
depict them in religious terms, concentrating instead on portraying them as worthy
adversaries. Indeed, he depicted them negatively only on the three occasions mentioned
above: when the Turks began to make their attacks on the Byzantine Empire in 1067;
after the death of Romanus IV in 1072, when the Turks again went to war with
Byzantium; and in 1081, when the victorious Alexius I allowed his Turkish mercenaries
to ransack Constantinople. Beyond that, William's treatment of the Turks was
312 William of Apulia, Gesta, 1.108, 110, 112.

313 William of Apulia, Gesta, 111.481-485. "Hue et Alexandri diversa feruntur ab urbe, / Regis et
Antiochi; gens haec freta plurima transit; / His Arabes, Libi, Siculi noscuntur et Afri: / Haec gens est totum
notissima paene per orbem / Et mercanda ferens et amans mercata referre." Amalfi had long pursued
commercial relations with the Muslims, on which see Metcalfe, The Muslims ofMedievalItaly, 17.
Albu, Normans in their Histories, 115. For more on Amalfi's far-flung commercial relations,
see Vera von Falkenhausen, "II commercio di Amalfi con Costantinopoli e il Levante nei secolo xii," in
Amalfi, Genova, Pisa e Venezia. II commercio con Costantinopoli e il vicino Oriente nei secolo XII, ed. O.
Banti, (Pisa: Pacini, 1998), 10-38.
75
surprisingly neutral. Even when they were enemies of his protagonist, Robert Guiscard,
he made no attempt to denigrate them.
Instead, in all of the other instances in which the Turks appeared (a total of eleven
places in the poem) William simply called them Turchi or Persae, with no mention of
11 c
their religion, and without citing any more examples of their barbarous behavior. On
the contrary—in his description of the aftermath of Manzikert, the Muslims in fact
appeared quite benevolent. After the fighting, the Persica phalanx brought Romanus
back to their camp, where he was given a seat alongside their leader, Alp Arslan. When
asked what would have happened had the situation been reversed, the emperor replied
that he would have had Arslan beheaded or hanged.317 The rex Persarum said that he
would never commit such a bad deed (facinus), but that he would instead seize the
opportunity to secure the peace he had sought for so long. After making plans to have
his daughter baptized and married to the emperor's son, Alp Arslan gave Romanus
"maxima dona" and set him and the captured Byzantine soldiers free. Finally, the
Turkish leader escorted the emperor and his men "honorifice" for some distance, and then
let them leave.320
Amatus, who also reported on the battle, described the situation in similar, but
more concise terms. Like William of Apulia, he too decided against condemning the
315 William of Apulia, Gesta, 11.57-60; 111.19-20, 22-23, 28-29; 111.43-44, 56-68, 63-71, 78-79;
III. 331-332, 414^18; V.70.
316 William of Apulia, Gesta, III.56-58. "Direptis castris Romanum Persica ducit / Ad sua castra
phalanx, et eum statuere sedili / Egregio, iuxta Persarum rege sedente." Alp Arslan (1029-1072), who led
the Seljuks to victory at Manzikert in 1071, was never actually identified by name in William of Apulia's
text.
3,7 William of Apulia, Gesta, 111.59-62.
318 William of Apulia, Gesta, III.63-64. On the negative connotations offacinus, see Lewis and
Short, A New Latin Dictionary, 716.
William of Apulia, Gesta, III. 66-70. The marriage alliance was also mentioned by Amatus of
Montecassino, Storia, 1.11. It also appeared in Byzantine sources, for which see de Bartholomaeis, Storia,
18n2.
76
Turks for their defeat of the Christian army. Incredibly, he wrote that the Turks had
received victory by "lo just jugement de Dieu."321 He went on to admit that, despite the
"grant mortalite de Chretiens," the Turkish leader received both the emperor and the
Norman mercenary captain Roussel of Bailleu "honorablement."
Yet it was not only when the Turks were enemies of Byzantium that William
refrained from deprecating them, as the same absence of invective is apparent when he
had Norman soldiers struggling against them. There is a certain air of neutrality toward
the end of his epic, when Bohemond pursued Alexius to the city of Larissa. The
emperor's forces were defeated, and took refuge in the town. Here the poet mentioned the
Byzantines' Turkish allies without trying to denigrate them, saying only that they fled
into the city too: "Nee minus et Turchi clauduntur in urbe fugaces." Although it is true
that William mentioned them fleeing, this does not seem particularly noteworthy. He did
not portray them as especially flighty (certainly not in comparison to the Greeks), and
made no explicit mention of their cowardice.
According to the poet, Turks were present at the battle of Durazzo (1081),
fighting the Normans on behalf of Emperor Alexius I, and there too he did not denigrate
them.324 William, chose only to mention that many of Robert's men were wounded bythe
arrows of the "Turchorum," and that, when the Normans resisted them, the Turks fled.
Once again, the poet did not even pause to revel in the moment as an example of their
cowardice. When the battle was over, William simply reported that a large number of

323William of Apulia, Gesta, V.70.
324 The battle of Durazzo was fought in October 1081 between the Byzantines, Venetians, and
Normans for control of the Straits of Otranto, for which see F. Chalandon, Essai sur le regne d'Alexisfr
Comnene: (1081-1118) (New York : Franklin, 1971 [reprint]), 78-81; Ostrogorski, History ofthe
Byzantine State, 357—359.
325 William of Apulia, Gesta, IV.331-337.
77
Turks had died with the Byzantines: "pars quoque Turchorum cum Graecis interit
ingens."326 It would seem that the poet wanted his protagonist to have an enemy worth
defeating, and therefore chose not to deprecate the Turks, taking a more ambivalent tone
in this particular episode.
Conclusions
Muslim characters figured into these five chronicles in a variety of ways, yet no
author chose to portray them in precisely the same light. Scattered invective aside, none
of these writers consistently reduced the relationship between Christianity and Islam to a
schematic clash between good and evil. Elements of a holy war theme can be found in
certain texts, but can hardly be said to have dominated any of the narratives. Without
exception, each author presented a nuanced image of the "Saracen people," although
some devoted more attention to this group than others. As will become apparent in the
following chapters, moreover, the chroniclers frequently treated other, Christian, groups
with greater contempt than they did the Muslims.
Although Geoffrey Malaterra needed to make the Saracens into the prime
antagonists of his narrative, he never tried to deprecate them in any consistent way. He
often displayed complete ambivalence, and only sporadically engaged in anti-Muslim
rhetoric. When his Muslim characters did function as villains, the author occasionally
portrayed them as deceitful, fickle, and greedy. In those cases, he employed different
forms of the words dissimulare, lucror,fraus, levitas, ars, traditio, and callidus. He did
not apply these words exclusively to Saracens, however, but to a number of other groups
as well, including the Normans. At a few moments in the chronicle, he came close to
326 William of Apulia, Gesta, IV.416.

78
embracing the language of holy war, depicting them as God's outcasts. More often,
though, the author contented himself with a passing comment about their religion—
referring, for instance, to Muslims as pagans, or to the Qu'ran as a book of superstition.
Yet much more frequently, Malaterra made no attempt to denigrate the Saracens
either for their behavior or for their beliefs. Further, despite the more blatant examples of
hostility to the Saracens mentioned above, Malaterra also included episodes where the
count negotiated a treaty (foedus) with Muslims. Juxtaposed against the invective,
Malaterra occasionally mentioned Roger's peace settlements with his Saracen enemies,
his use of Muslim soldiers, and his diplomatic relations with Themin, the Zirid ruler of
Ifriqiya. Especially when describing Muslims allied to Count Roger, he seems to have
deliberately overlooked opportunities for invective. Presumably, this inconsistency owes
much to the fact that the Saracens did not always figure into the narrative as antagonists,
and so the author only saw fit to attack them occasionally, and in a haphazard manner.
Malaterra's central task was to glorify the count, and, for that reason, he tended not to
engage in slander against the Muslims unless it absolutely served that purpose.
Amatus of Montecassino's denigration of the Saracens was no more consistent
than Malaterra's, yet his monastic outlook was far more apparent. Amatus, like
Malaterra, apparently had no reluctance whatsoever to discuss the use of Muslims in
Christian armies. Despite this similarity, as a Cassinese monk, Amatus showed little
interest in the glory of battle. He neglected major episodes like Cerami, which Malaterra
chose to highlight, glossed over others, like Palermo, which William of Apulia reveled in
describing, and showed no concern with depicting the Saracens as valiant fighters, which
both William and Malaterra tried to do. He certainly had different priorities than either of
79
these writers, and it does not seem farfetched to suggest that, as a member of a
Benedictine monastery that had long been the target of both Christian and Muslim
aggression, the author disliked violence in general. In any event, Amatus seems to have
been much more preoccupied with providing his protagonists with a moral pretext for
waging their war in Sicily, and repeatedly stressed that the nonbelievers were oppressing
Christians in order to justify the military campaign that was still underway at the time he
was writing.
William of Apulia, on the other hand, was writing an epic poem intended to
glorify the wars of Robert Guiscard, and to that end he needed to present the Muslims as
worthy adversaries. Thus the poet depicted the Saracens as capable and sometimes even
noble warriors. Both Turks and Sicilians inhabited William's text, yet he never
denigrated either group with complete consistency. However, when William did
condemn the Muslims, he did so using highly charged anti-Islamic rhetoric that far
outstripped the type utilized by either of his prose contemporaries. This writer, moreover,
placed the Saracens in a more clearly antagonistic role, was careful never to mention any
examples of cooperation between Christians and Muslims, and never singled out any
Saracen leader by name. For William, the followers of Islam were a faceless mass of
warriors who were, nevertheless, capable of displaying skill and honor on the battlefield.
Hugo Falcandus wrote in a cultural and political milieu quite different from that
of his predecessors, and his image of the Saracens understandably reflected that
difference. His experience with Muslims seems to have been based essentially on his
attitudes toward Christian converts in the court and reports of sectarian violence scattered
27 He used invective for the Muslims ofSicily in nine out ofthirteen instances and for the Turks
in three out of thirteen instances, engaging in abusive language a little less than half the time.
80
across the island. It must be stressed that Falcandus was a sharply critical observer who
looked upon most of the people he discussed with equal venom. His Christian characters
fared little better than the non-Christians, and he clearly regarded the Muslim population
as just one of several threats to the stability of the Sicilian monarchy.
In short, it would be both misleading and wrong to say that these chroniclers
roundly condemned all Muslims as an evil and alien "other." On the contrary, they
viewed the Saracens through a spectrum of different lenses, not all of which were hostile.
One finds in the sources a fairly broad range of emotions dictated partly by the individual
personality of the writer, partly by his intent in writing, and partly by the constraints of
patronage under which he operated. This is especially true of Malaterra: facing the same
political realities of eleventh-century Sicily that required his protagonist to forge working
relationships with non-Christians, this chronicler had to strike a delicate balance between
denigration and toleration. As will be seen in the following chapter, politics and
patronage would play an even larger role when it came to discussing the natives of
southern Italy.
81
CHAPTER III
THE LOMBARDS: EMPATHY AND ODIUM
Mainland Italy in the eleventh and twelfth centuries witnessed tumultuous social
and political transformations as the land passed between Byzantine, Lombard, and
Norman hands. Historically, the sixth-century invasion of Germanic tribes known as the
Lombards led to the creation of a new monarchy based in Pavia, which was subsequently
replaced in the 700s by a Frankish kingdom, at least in northern Italy. The south, on
the other hand, remained divided between Lombard and Byzantine rulers long after
Charlemagne's conquest of the north in 774. The principalities of Benevento, Capua, and
Salerno shared the Mezzogiorno with maritime enclaves such as Bari and Naples. This
political plurality prevailed past the year 1000 and paralleled similar heterogeneity of
religion and language.
The terminology of eleventh- and twelfth-century authors indicates that the
population retained considerable diversity. Well into the central Middle Ages, many
communities in southern Italy were in fact considered "Greek," while others throughout
the peninsula were thought of as "Latin" or "Lombard."329 Whether the so-called
3 For a classic study of this topic, see Chris Wickham, Early Medieval Italy: Central Power and
Local Society, 400-1000 (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1989), 28-63.
32 Among medieval writers, Greci I Graeci could mean both subjects ofthe Byzantine Empire or
Greek-speakers living elsewhere, outside the dominion of Constantinople. Consider, for example, the
identification of people living in the Sila mountain range of southern Calabria as "Greeks" by Falcandus,
Liber, c. 53, 138. See also Houben, "Religious Toleration in the South Italian Peninsula," in TheSociety of
Norman Italy, eds. G.A. Loud and A. Metcalfe (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 320. "Certain areas such as Campania,
the Abruzzi, the northern Basilicata and northern Apulia . . . were primarily inhabited by a 'Latin'
82
Lombards of the eleventh century felt any significant connection to the Germanic settlers
who entered Italy five hundred years prior remains a debatable issue, and has in any event
been studied at length elsewhere.330 The task at hand is not to assess the strength of
competing "ethnic" identities, but rather to consider the exact terms in which the
inhabitants of Italy were described. For the present purpose, the essential point to bear in
mind is that, after the year 1000, most Latin writers continued to refer to the majority of
the people of Italy as Longobardi or Itali when they did not use a regional appellation. As
will be seen, the writers of the Norman period did not necessarily view these natives
favorably, and this remained the case even into the twelfth century.
In discussing medieval "Italians," the ever present danger of anachronism can best
be avoided through a terminological analysis that faithfully examines the actual social
vocabulary used to describe these people. To be sure, Italy in its modern sense did not
come about until the nineteenth century, but the idea of being Italian, albeit in different
manifestations, had existed even in the writings of antiquity. While Longobardi was
the most frequent expression applied to the inhabitants of Italy in the sources under
discussion here, it is not the only one. William of Apulia, who strongly preferred
classicizing language suitable to epic verse, also referred to Italians as Latini, populus
population. The majority of these peoples were of Lombard descent, and the conquerors had rapidly
intermingled with them due to their close linguistic, cultural and religious ties. However, in the southern
Basilicata, the Otranto region of Apulia and Calabria, they found a population which in the previous three
centuries of Byzantine rule had acquired Greek language and culture." For my discussion of the Greek-
speaking population of Sicily, see the following chapter.
30 See, for example, Diego Zancani, "The Notion of'Lombard' and 'Lombardy' in the Middle
Ages," in Medieval Europeans: Studies in Ethnic Identity ed. Alfred P. Smyth (New York: St. Martin's
Press, 1998), 217-232; Walter Pohl, "Gens Ipsa Peribit: Kingdom and Identity after the End of Lombard
Rule," in 774: ipotesi su una transizione: atti del Seminariodi Poggibonsi, 16-18febbraio 2006, ed.
Stefano Gasparri (Turnhout: Brepols, 2008), 67-78.
For an in-depth look at expressions of Italian identity in classical literature, see Thomas N.
Habinek, The Politics ofLatinLiterature: Writing, Identity, and Empire in AncientRome (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1998).
83
Italiae, and Ausoni.332 Writers did sometimes draw a distinction between northerners and
southerners, but this was not a hard and fast rule. Usually, when the chroniclers of the
Norman period described "Italians" or "Lombards," they were referring generally to the
non-Greek speaking inhabitants ofthe mainland.333 This terminology gradually changed

in the twelfth century, and the transition is evident in the history of Alexander of Telese
and Hugo Falcandus, who seem to have found other, region-specific expressions more
useful.334
Yet aside from such broad terms of reference, these authors also distinguished
between groups of people based on city, region, and sect. Where appropriate, the strong
local identities associated with specific cities and regions are discussed in their own
sections below. Particularly because of the unique way in which certain maritime city-
states figured into these texts, special consideration must be given to how the chroniclers
portrayed their citizens. Among them, Pisa, Bari, and Venice will be singled out for
separate discussions. In addition, the chroniclers typically identified Calabrians as a
unique group, and for that reason Calabrians will be treated separately as well. Rather
than anachronistically impose such divisions on the texts, these distinctions have been
made carefully and deliberately based on evidence contained in the sources.
332 Malaterra used the term "Longobardi" and "Itali" andAmatus's French translator used
"Longobart." Malaterra only used Latini in a devotional sense, in comparison to Greek Christians.
Falcandus and William of Apulia, however, employed the word more generally to mean non-Greek Italians.
333 Specifically, Amatus of Montecassino, Geoffrey Malaterra, William of Apulia, and Alexander
of Telese used the word "Longobardi" (or Langobart in the case of the Old French version of Amatus) to
mean the inhabitants of Apulia and the principalities of Salerno, Capua, and Benevento. William of Apulia
and Hugo Falcandus both distinguished between northern and southern Italians. William employed the
word Lambardus for Arduin, who was originally from Milan, and for Albert Azo II, marquis of Este.
William of Apulia, Gesta, 1.194, 1.204, III.489.
334 Although Apulia was under Byzantine rule until 1071, the authors tended to describe them as
"Longobardi;" thus, for example, Malaterra expressly linked the two, writing of "Longobardi igitur
Apulienses." Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, 1.13, 14. For that reason, perceptions and definitions of
"Apulians" will be examined alongside those of the "Lombards."
84
Hostile Vocabulary in the Eleventh-Century Texts
The earlier chroniclers by and large described the Italian "Lombards" in more
deprecatory terms than they did the Muslims. In fact, with the possible exception of the
Graeci, Geoffrey Malaterra and Amatus of Montecassino treated this group with greater
contempt than any other set of people. In contrast, William of Apulia's deprecation of the
Lombards was both less severe and less frequent, although he did find a few instances in
which to castigate them for their fractious behavior and military ineptitude. The other two
writers, by comparison, enriched their narratives with details about what they viewed as
the Lombards' typically disloyal, conniving character. Indeed, the prose historians seem
to have attached faithlessness to the very core of what might be called "Lombard
identity."335
For Malaterra, these people were a race of unreliable, untrustworthy traitors, and
the words he most frequently associated them with pertained to secrecy, betrayal, and
hatred {occultus, perfidia, traditio, malitia, and invisus). The author, for example,
referred to the Longobardi as a "most treacherous sort {genus semper perfidissimumy
when describing a Lombard conspiracy {traditio) that led to the mass murder of Normans
throughout Apulia (including Robert Guiscard's brother, Drogo). He observed that the
Lombard "genus" hated "our people {nostra gens)" when describing their use of "fraus"
35 Mathieu, introduction to Gesta, 22. The editorof the modern critical edition of the Gesta
Roberti Wiscardinoted that William's portrayal of Italians was far more positive than that of his
contemporaries, writing that the poet "n'accuse jamais les Lombards en bloc, comme Malaterra . . . ne en
particulier, comme Aime."
Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, 1.13, 14. "Longobardi igitur Apulienses, genus semper
perfidissimum, traditionem per universam Apuliam silenter ordinant, ut omnes Normanni una die
occiderentur. Determinato die, cum comes Drogo apud castrum montis Olei. . . moraretur, summo diluculo
ad ecclesiam, ut sibi mos erat, properans, cum jam ecclesiam intraret, quidam, Risus nomine, eiusdem
comitis compater et sacramento confoederatus, post januam latens, foedere rupto, ferro eum suscepit:
sicque cum pluribus suorum, paucis aufugientibus, occisus est. Sed per diversa Apulia loca plures hac
traditione occubuerunt."
85
to seize the fortress of Amalfi—a citadel originally built to control the perfidia of the
locals.337 Malaterra similarly wrote that Richard, the Norman prince of Capua, was
ejected from his dominion because of the "treachery of the Lombards (fraus
Langobardorum)r33% Roger Borsa, who had trusted this group because he was himself
half Lombard, was said to have come to regret the faith he had shown these people when
they rose up against him.339 Such heavily biased depictions likely reflect how the
conquerors actually perceived the stubborn resistance of a people with a long tradition of
independence. Malaterra, a new arrival in Italy, was scorning what he interpreted as
native insolence.
William of Apulia took a different line of thought, and usually described the
Lombards using words for fear rather than betrayal. When deprecating the people of
Italy, he most frequently used forms of the wordfuga, and sometimes forms of tremor,
terror, andpavor. Although it is true that the majority of these instances occurred in
William's account of the battle of Civitate, discussed below, there are other examples
outside of that episode that reinforce the image of a fearful people.340 Rarely, the poet
also used words for disorganization {discors, conglomerati), extravagance {luxuries), and,
uniquely, esteem {virtus, probis).341 The poet even repeatedly praised one Apulian city,
Giovinazzo, for its loyalty to Robert Guiscard.342 None ofthese expressions were in
337 Malaterra, Derebus gestis Rogerii, IV.24.

The famous battle of Civitate occurred on 18 June 1053, when a papal coalition consisting of
Italian and Swabian infantry were defeated by Norman knights under the command of Humphrey de
Hauteville and Richard of Aversa, leading to the capture of the German pope Leo IX (1049-54) by the
Normans. For a brief historical overview of this event, see Wolf, MakingHistory, 15-17.
Given that the strong negative connotation of the other categories, it does not seem unlikely
that William used these last two words in an ironic sense.
Of these numerous examples of Giovinazzo's obedience, perhaps the most interesting is the
episode in which Robert Guiscard, after embracing all the inhabitants, granted the town three years of
86
themselves especially vituperative, and of all the authors, William appears to have
possessed the most sympathetic outlook.
For his part, Amatus chose to denigrate the Lombards from a moral standpoint,
frequently accusing them of evil. Indeed, his fondest words for them {malice, malvaiz,
iniquite, perversite) possessed rather strong connotations of sinful depravity. Other
expressions related to the notion of religious transgression as well. Among these vices,
words for pride {superbe, arrogance) and greed {avarice, envidie, covoitise), were the
most common.344 It is worth noting that the author applied such language to individuals
as well as the inhabitants of southern Italy as a whole.345 Writing of the people of Capua,
for example, Amatus referred broadly to "the vain arrogance of the men who lived in that
country," and described its prince, Pandulf IV, as "a wicked man" who was counseled by
exemption from tribute. After that, the poet specified that they would only owe half the standard rate.
William of Apulia, Gesta, III.589 ff. Other passages stressed the fides and amor of this Apulian town. Ibid.,
III.539-541. "Non tamen, urbibus his hac tempestate remotis, / Gens ab amore ducis luvenaci fida recedit. /
Unanimes optant parere fideliter illi." Ibid., III.553-554. "Gens Iuvenacensis non obsidione vel armis /
Territa stat fortis." Ibid., III.580—581. "Iuvenacus fida recept / Hinc equites aliquot." Some have suggested
that the poet could have been from Giovinazzo. The text's most recent editor, however, dismissed this. See
Mathieu, introduction to Gesta, 22n3. Vincenzo de Bartholomaeis likewise felt that the suggestion "non ha
alcuna riprova." De Bartholomaeis, introduction to Storia, xvii.
343 Forms of the word malvaiz appeared with reference to Lombards in twenty-five instances.
Amatus of Montecassino, Storia, 1.35, 46; 1.37; 1.41; II.5, 62; 11.13, 70; 11.39; 111.34, 149; IV.25; IV.39,
212; IV.41, 212 (twice); IV.43, 215-216 (three times); IV.44, 216; V.3, 265; VIII. 1 (twice); VIII.2, 340;
VIII.4, 346; VIII.8; VIII. 18; VIII.24, 365; VIII.29, 370-317 (twice). Amatus accused Lombards of
perversity, or perversite, nine times. Ibid., 1.37; 1.38, 50; 1.39, 52; 11.13, 70; 111.38,15; IV.13, 192; IV.42,
214; IV.43, 216; VIII.24, 366. He applied iniquite to them seven times. Ibid., 1.35, 47; 1.38, 50; 1.38. 50;
1.40; 111.24, 139; IV.39, 211; IV.41, 212; IV.47.
4Superbe appeared with reference to the Lombards in six places. Amatus of Montecassino,
Storia, 1.43, 43; 11.13, 70; IV.34; IV.38, 209 (twice); VIII.10, 351. Arrogance occured in three places. Ibid.,
IV.27, 201; IV.34; IV.37.
Envidie I invidie appeared three times. Amatus of Montecassino, Storia, IV.34 (twice); VIII.21,
360. Avarice appeared in three places as well. Ibid., IV.34; IV.40; VIII. 18. Covoitise was used in ibid.,
IV.34; IV.39, 212; VIII.3, 343.
345 In this regard I object to Lucas-Avenel's notion that "lepeuple lombard n'est pas deprecie du
point de vue moral par Aime" du Mont-Cassin, qui, dans la critique de ses compatriotes, ne vise que les
princes." Although Amatus did focus heavily on the evils of specific rulers, he also made comments about
the Lombards in general, as when he wrote of "la perversite" and "la vane arrogance de ceuz qui habitoient
en la contree." Marie-Agnes Lucas-Avenel, "La Gens Normannorum en Italie du Sud," in Identite et
Ethnicite. Concepts, debatshistoriographiques, exemples (XlT-XIf siecle), eds. Veronique Gazeau, Pierre
Bauduin, Yves Moderan (Caen: CRAHM, 2008), 241.
87
the devil.346 Like Malaterra, moreover, Amatus seems to have possessed a conception of
the Lombards as unruly oath breakers, occasionally using words related to treachery or
discord (prodicion, traison, discord, dissimulation). It is quite revealing that, by
comparison, Amatus hardly ever used expressions of impiety when writing about the
Saracens. In fact, two of the most common terms, iniquite and malvaiz, were never used
with reference to Muslims at all. It would seem that, for this monastic writer, the
Christian Lombards in fact represented a greater evil than did the infidel in Sicily.
Three Interpretations of Civitate
Perhaps nowhere were disloyalty and unreliability stressed as innately "Lombard"
characteristics more than in accounts of the battle of Civitate, which Malaterra, William,
and Apulia all described in considerable depth. In his version of this Norman victory over
a papal coalition, Malaterra attested to the betrayal {traditio) of the Apulian Lombards,
who through "secret envoys" invited Pope Leo IX (1049-1054) to raise an army and
*1AQ
invade the south. The pope quickly complied and brought a force composed of both
Germans and Italians to combat the Normans. Though "trusting in the help of the
Lombards," he and his German soldiers were soon abandoned by them, as they became
346 Amatus of Montecassino, Storia, IV.27. "Lavane arrogance de ceuz qui habitoient en la
contr6e." Ibid., IV.41. "Cestui malvaiz home, lo prince de Capue, Pandulfe." Ibid., IV.39. "Li dyable dona
conseill a Pandulfe."
347There were seven different phrases for betrayal onthepart of Lombards: prodicion, traison,
discord, traitorfaillie lafidelite, dissimulation, and simulation. Prodicion appeared in ibid., IV.39, 212.
Traison was used in ibid., 111.30, 147; VII. 13, 305. Discord occured in ibid., IV.44; IV.48 (twice). Traitor
was used in ibid., III.34 (twice). The phrase faillie lafidelite occurred in ibid., III.28, 143. Dissimulatio and
simulatio appeared in ibid., IV.34; IV.46 (twice).
Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, 1.14. "Apulienses vero, necdum traditionibus exhausti, per
occultos legatos nonum Leonem apostolicum, ut in Apuliam cum exercitu veniat, invitant." Although
Malaterra referred to these south Italians as "Apulians" in this sentence, the passages that immediately
followed made it clear he considered them Lombards as well. In the previous chapter, he had also described
them as "Longobardi igitur Apulienses." Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, 1.13, 14.
"terrified {territi)" and fled early inthe battle.349 When Leo caught up with his erstwhile
allies, "treacherous as always {utsemperperfidissimi)," they used the pontiff as
Ten
collateral, surrendering him to his enemies once they had guaranteed their own safety.
William of Apulia, who devoted nearly a hundred lines of verse to this battle,
elaborated on the treacherous and incompetent role of the Italians in even more caustic
language, but did so with rather deft precision. In summoning the pope, the people of
Apulia {gensAppula) were said to have mixed truth with lies, "accusing the Gauls with
various slander."351 Then, when Leo arrived, his German troops vainly placed their trust
in "the flighty Lombard mob {Longobardorumfugax turba)," but these "Itali," proved
unable even to draw up a proper line of battle.352 Confronting the enemy "all crowded
together {omni conglomerati)," the Lombards were soon put to flight "like pigeons
chased by a hawk."353 Inthe space of 150 lines, the poet applied various words relating to
fear and flight to the Lombard soldiers a total of fifteen times. Yet William, careful not to
carry his analysis of their shameful behavior too far, found a scapegoat on which to some
of vent his scorn.
349 Malaterra, Derebus gestis Rogerii, 1.14. "Confidens in auxilio Longobardorum, Apuliam intrat
. . . Longobardi, territi, fuga seipsos tueri nituntur."
350 Malaterra, Derebus gestis Rogerii, 1.14. "Apostolicus, fuga vitae asylum expetens, intra urbem
provinciae Capitanatae, quae Civitata dicitur, sese profugus recepit. Quern hostes insequentes, armato
milite obsident: aggeres portant, machinamenta ad urbem capiendam parant, incolas minis terrent, ut
apostolicum reddant. Illi vero, ut semper perfidissimi, nulla pactione ad utilitatem apostolici, nisi ut se ipsos
tuerentur, exquisita, eum per portas eiciunt."
351 William of Apulia, Gesta, 11.67-70. "Tanti gens Appula papae / Audit ut adventum, varias
deferre querelas / Coepit, et accusat diverso crimine Gallos, / Veris commiscens fallacia."
>3 William of Apulia, Gesta, 11.193-209. "Itali simul omnes conglomerati, / Parte alia stabant:
etenim certamine belli / Non aptare suas acies recto ordine norant. / Hos contra coepit prior arma movere
Ricardus, / Et petit audacter. Non sustinuere petentem / Viribus aversis Itali; tremor arripit omnes, / Inque
fugam versi per plana, per ardua, cursim / Diffugiunt; multos cogit subcombere stratos / Impetus ipse
fugare; iaculis caeduntur et ense. / Qualiter aeria, ubi convenere, palumbes, / Dum petit accipiter, fugitivo
summa volatu / Et scopulosa facit celsi iuga quaerere montis; / Quas tamen ipse capit, non possunt amplius
ullum / Quaerere confugium: sic dantes terga Ricardus. / Diffugiunt Itali, sed quos capit ipse, vel ipsi /
Haerentes socii, fuga nil iuvat. Occidit illuc / Plurima gens Latii bello, pars maxima fugit."
89
Though the poet claimed that the pope's motley force came largely from central
Italy, he singled out a particular group, the people of the March of Fermo {gens
Marchana) as especially disgraceful.354 He wrote that Leo was quite unwise to trust this
O C C
"most unworthy dregs of the Italian people {Italaefex indignissima gentis)." William
observed, moreover, that these men of the March, the lowest of the low, were innately
disposed to "fear, flight, and luxury (pavor etfuga luxuriesque)," while—perhaps
disingenuously—remarking that the rest of Italy abounded in courage {virtus). This
statement about Italian courage (seemingly out of place in a passage describing an
ignominious defeat and accompanied by phrases like Longobardorumfugax turba) may
have been a face saving gesture aimed at comforting those, such as William's own
patron, who claimed some attachment to the Lombard people. On another level, perhaps
William, who was not averse to irony, meant his comments as a veiled criticism. In light
of the poet's other remarks about the Lombards' failings, it would be difficult to interpret
OCT
his statement about Italian bravery as anything other than ironic. Indeed, William's
version of Civitate testified to just how far the Italians were from displaying "magna
virtus."358
354 The poet listed people from various places in Italy (Rome, Samnium, Capua, Ancona, Spoleto,
Sabinium, Fermo, Apulia, Valva, Campania, Marsia and Chieti) as filling the ranks of the papal army.
William of Apulia, Gesta, 11.150-151, 171-174. Kenneth Baxter Wolf suggested that, because William
deprecated the "gens Marchana" more than any other group in this episode, the poet could have been
himself a Lombard. However, here and elsewhere William did in fact condemn the "Longobardi," and
"Itali," not just the "gens Marchana," making this hypothesis seem unlikely. See also Mathieu, introduction
to Gesta, 22n2. Mathieu argued that the gens Marchana referred not to the people of the march of Fermo as
a whole, but rather to the ruling comital dynasty. Mathieu believed that the poet acknowledge the cowardly
behavior of the Italians at Civitate only because "elle fut de notoriete publique, et attestee part toutes les
sources." Ibid., 22.
356 William of Apulia, Gesta, II. 108-111. "Spem dabat his Italae fex indignissima gentis, / Gens
Marchana, probis digne reprobata Latinis: / Cum plures Itali magna virtute redundent, / His erat innatus
pavor et fuga luxuriesque."
5 On William of Apulia's use of irony, see Albu, The Normans in their Histories, 142-143.
358 William of Apulia, Gesta, II.l 10.
90
Amatus assigned blame to the Lombards for the defeat at Civitate as well, but in a
more direct and more obviously spiritual way, interpreting it as the just will of God. In
his version, St. Matthew visited the bishop of Salerno in his sleep before the battle, telling
him that, though the pope was bringing a force of "despicable knights {vilz chavaliers)"
against the Normans, the army would be defeated.359 During this dream vision, the
Apostle went on to explain that it had been "ordained before the presence of God" that
the land should pass to the Normans "because of the perversity (perversite) of those who
held it."360 When the battle finally did take place, the prophecy was fulfilled, and Leo's
German soldiers were said to have looked back only to see that the Lombards had fled the
field.361
From a Norman perspective, Civitate was a shining victory that secured their
legitimacy in the face of papal, Italian, and German opposition, and because of its
significance none of these three historians could omit such a resounding success from
their narratives. Yet the very fact that the Normans had faced resistance from the pope
had to be treated with some care. Thus, with minor variations, each author explicitly
assigned responsibility to the Lombards, in effect exculpating both Leo and his Norman
enemies.
59 Amatus of Montecassino, Storia, III.38, 151. "Mes je te prophetize que la mort non esttrop
long. Li Pape vient avec vilz chavaliers pour chacier; mes li sien seront destruit, et espars, et en prison, et
mort. Et puiz cest cose, retornera a Rome et sera mort."
The Old French adjective vil primarily meant low or common, although it could also mean
loathsome or abominable. Tobler and Lommatzch, Altfranzosisches Worterbuch, vol. 11, 462-463.
360 Amatus of Montecassino, Storia, III.38, 151. "Quar c'est ordene devant la presence de Dieu,
quar quicunques sera contre li Normant, pour les chacier, ou tost morira, ou grant affliction aura. Quar ceste
terre de Dieu est donn^e a li Normant; quar la perversity de ceus qui la tenoient."
361 Amatus of Montecassino, Storia, 111.40, 156. "Et li Thodeschi se reguardent derriere pour veoir
lor compaingnie; mes nul Longobart venoit apres eauz, quar tuit s'en estoient foui."
362 Fora briefanalysis of their literary efforts to rehabilitate this episode of blatant conflict with
the papacy, see Wolf, Making History, 101, 162.
91
According to these three chroniclers, the Lombards alone brought about the battle
and its outcome. For Malaterra, their behavior was ascribable to their cowardly and
treacherous nature, made explicit when he called them perfldissimus and territus.
William described them in somewhat similar terms, as cowards who had used lies to
summon a foreign army to fight on their behalf, and noted their lack of martial prowess
as well. Yet, regardless of his sincerity, the poet also made some attempt to shift the
burden of defeat from the "Lombard people," or gens Longobardorum generally, to a
particular subgroup of Italians, the gens Marchana. With less tact than William, the
Cassinese monk Amatus suggested instead that the Lombards had earned the wrath of
God through their wickedness, oxperversite, and that their loss of Italy was part of the
divine plan. For Amatus, the Normans were a chosen people, coming to their promised
land, and were therefore destined to succeed because they were favored by divine
providence. In that sense, then, some of the more divinely inspired scenes from the
military campaigns in Sicily lose much of their aura of holy war when compared against
this episode. Aside from these fascinating discrepancies, the simple underlying
message in all three descriptions of Civitate, however, was that the Lombards as a people
had proved themselves unfit to hold the land.
63 Amatus wrote of the Norman victory at Civitate asthe will of God, and Malaterra observed that
the pope absolved the Normans of their sins following the battle. Malaterra, De rebusgestis Rogerii, 1.14.
Paul E. Chevedden, who has used these authors to argue that the Sicilian campaign marked the first true
instance of a crusade, failed to take Civitate into account in his analysis. He indicated that Malaterra and
Amatus only mentioned papal dispensation and divine providence in battles against the Muslims, which, as
seen above, was clearly not the case. Both of these two "holy war" elements were present in the accounts of
Civitate, where the Normans defeated a Christian army. Chevedden, "A Crusade from the First," 206-214.
92
The Princely Lombard Family of Salerno
Depictions of individual rulers, particularly the Lombard princes of Salerno,
demonstrated this theme of unworthiness as well, and gave the chroniclers an opportunity
to highlight their fractious and incompetent misrule.364 Malaterra reported that Guaimar
IV of Salerno, who employed Norman mercenaries, eventually turned against these
foreign knights because "the Lombards are a most hateful people {gens invidissima),
suspicious of any honest man."365 Guaimar acted secretly—"animo occulte"—but, when

the Normans learned about his "treachery {dolositas)" they left his service and began the
conquest of Apulia.366 Amatus reported a slightly different version of the relationship
between Guaimar and his mercenaries, saying that, although the Lombard prince kept
Normans knights in his service, he also imprisoned and tortured some of them, and acted
against his Norman friend, Drogo de Hauteville, many times. After these insights into
Guaimar's character, the monk of Montecassino then proceeded to explain how the
prince was murder by his relatives: surrounded and cut off from all support, he was struck
first by his brother-in-law, who shouted "death to he who blinds," a statement apparently
T/-Q
intended to underscore the cruelty of Guaimar's reign. Amatus later noted that, though
364 On the Lombard principality of Salerno, see Huguette Taviani-Carozzi, La principaute

lombarde de Salerne (DC-XT siecle). Pouvoir et societe en Italie lombarde meridionale (Rome: Ecole
francaise de Rome, 1991).
365 Malaterra, Derebus gestis Rogerii, 1.6. "Longobardorum vero gens invidissima, et semper
quemcumque probum suspectum habens, ipsos apud eundem principem, inimico dente rodente, occulto
detrahebat, suggerentes quatenus eos a se repelleret. . . Sed princeps, quamvis, pravis consiliis suorum
assentiens, quod hortabantur facere moliretur, tamen strenuitatem eorum timens, quod animo occulte
agebat, minus in propatulo aperire praesumebat."
Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, 1.8, 12. "Sed dolositatem Gaimarii principis cognoscentes,
ad ipsum minime transierunt; totam provinciam infestando, sibi earn subjugandi consilium capiunt."
367 Amatus of Montecassino, Storia, 11.34, 99. Amatus reported that Guaimar imprisoned and
tortured Count Rainulf and Hugh Falloc along with many others. In ibid., 11.35, 102, Amatus noted that,
although Guaimar acted against Drogo, the Norman remained firm in his loyalty to the prince.
368 Amatus of Montecassino, Storia, III.28, 145. "Etcrierent: «Soit occis cil qui ci veut cecare!» Et
[de] li quatre freres de la moillier, Landulfe, plus jovene de touz, premerement estendi la main et lo feri de
93
the Norman knights afterward avenged the prince's death, "they did not mourn the
loss."369
While both Malaterra and Amatus dwelt upon the unhappiness and discord
associated with Guaimar's reign, they made the rule of his son and successor, Gisulf II of
Salerno, out to be considerably worse. For Malaterra, Gisulf was a man with "malice in
his heart {animo malitia)."370 According to him, the prince "hurled enmity" at his brother-
in-law, Robert Guiscard, captured and abused the duke's followers, and made it no secret
that he hated "our people {nostra gens)."311 Robert thereafter besieged Salerno and
deposed this last Lombard prince of southern Italy.
Amatus, whose storyline concerned the Lombards to a much greater extent,
carried this further, making Gisulf into the main villain of his history. Identifying the
prince as "descended from a race of vipers," he accused him of nearly every sin
imaginable: envy, deceit, arrogance, pride, greed, gluttony, avarice, homicide, perfidy,
sacrilege, returning good with evil, discord, and false chastity.373 In a history centered on
the Normans, Amatus devoted forty-one different chapters to the various wicked deeds of
this non-Norman in a demonstration of how the last Lombard prince of Salerno brought
about his own downfall. Among his more severe crimes, the "loup rapace Gisolfe,
maistre de toute malice" was said to have persecuted holy men and oppressed the people
la lance." In ibid., III.30, 146, Guaimar's brother lamented that the prince was not only dead, but had been
cruelly killed: "Je me veing a lamenter a vouz et dire de la mort de mon frere Guaymere: non solement
mort, mes crudele occision." Geoffrey Malaterra suggested that he had been killed by the people of Amalfi.
Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, III.3.
369 Amatus of Montecassino, Storia, 111.31, 147. "Etnon plorent liNormant manco de lui."
370 Malaterra, Derebus gestis Rogerii, III.2.
Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, III.2. "Versus ducem inimicitias injecit: omnesque ei
adhaerentes, quos capere poterat, contumeliis deturpans, nostrae genti sese inimicari non abscondebat."
372 Malaterra, Derebus gestis Rogerii, III.3-4.
73 Amatus ofMontecassino, Storia, IV.34. Amatus described Gisulf as born from vipers in ibid.,
111.44.
94
ofhis own city with a cruelty that rivaled Nero and Maximian. 74 He even replaced a holy
relic, the tooth of St. Matthew, with a forgery—the tooth of a Jew. Amatus further
claimed that the prince considered himself a living god, heeded the words of a false
"inf.
prophet, and ransacked churches to finance his war with the Normans. Having
committed various sacrileges, his defeat was eventually revealed in two separate
prophesies: in the first, a monk in Salerno declared that "in the reign of the son of
Guaimar, prince of Salerno, the reign of the Lombards will end, and it will be conceded
^77
to a fine man from another people, through whom the city will be exalted." In the
second, Gisulf s father, Guaimar, appeared in a dream and declared that "the unheard-of-
cruelty of my wicked son Gisulf. . . will not last forty years."378 The prophecies came to
pass, as Salerno ultimately succumbed to a protracted siege and its prince was captured.
For Amatus, this Lombard ruler was not just cruel, but a sacrilegious tyrant who
^70
was aided by the devil. Coming from this author, that is quite a significant detail, since
the only other diabolical connection he ever made involved another Lombard, the prince
of Capua, Pandulf IV. It is important to point out that Amatus never accused any other
character—including the Muslims—of such atrocious evil. In a narrative where the hand
of God can be seen at work everywhere, Gisulf earned divine vengeance through his sins,
and, as a result, his people became subjects of the Normans. For the monk of
Amatus of Montecassino, Storia, IV.43. Gisulf committed sacrilege by persecuting the saintly
abbot Guaiferius. In ibid., VIII.21, Gisulf also imprisoned and tortured a cleric named Gratian, because
Gratian's brother and nephew had defected. In ibid., VIII.2, Gisulf s cruelty was compared to that of Nero
and Maximian.
376 Amatus of Montecassino, Storia, VIII. 18. Gisulf ransacked the churches of Salerno. In ibid.,
VIII.9, Gisulf heeded a false prophet, a monk, who told him to attack the people of Amalfi. In ibid., VIII.5,
Amatus said Gisulf s pride was such that he seemed to be among the gods.
377 Amatus of Montecassino, Storia, VIII. 1.
378 Amatus of Montecassino, Storia, VIII. 1.
379 Amatus of Montecassino, Storia, VIII.24.
380 Amatus of Montecassino, Storia, 1.39.
95
Montecassino, the fall of the last Lombard prince of Salerno accorded with the divine
plan and was at least as significant as the fall of Muslim Sicily.
Of all this, William of Apulia reported very little. Though the poet made vague
references to the fighting between the princes of Italy that enabled the rise of the
Normans, he avoided specific details. Thus he wrote in the first book of his poem that
"a great desire among those princes for domination produced wars {illis principibus
dominandi magna libido I Bella minstrabat)," and observed that the Normans, by playing
sides, gained the upper hand, but offered little commentary beyond these succinct
remarks. Although William reflected that "Gallic prudence deceived the Italians
{Decipit Ausoniosprudentia Gallica)," he did not voice nearly the same degree of
hostility as Malaterra or Amatus. Some of his remarks about their infighting could
even be interpreted as lamentation, as in the following passage: "Alas, poor wretches,
whatsoever in the world they tried was useless . . . An absolute Lombard victory was
never agreeable to the Normans, lest hardship come back against them {Heu miseri,
mundo quicquid conantur inane est. . . Numquam Normannis, nepoena rediret in ipsos I
Longobardorum placuit victoria prorsus)."3U As William informed his readers, it was the
"discordia Latii" that restored hope among the Normans.385 The tone of these verses,
while clearly disapproving, evinces little hostility and is, if anything, ruefully
retrospective.
381 Indeed, William's account ofthe establishment ofthe Normans in Campania (1018-1038) is
extremely vague in comparison to the reports furnished by Malaterra and Amatus. It would indicate either
that he lacked adequate sources for that period or was reticent to discuss the stormy relations between his
protagonists and the Lombard rulers. See Mathieu, introduction to Gesta, 29-30.
383 William of Apulia, Gesta, 1.160.
384 William of Apulia, Gesta, I. 153-157.
385 William of Apulia, Gesta, I. 148-157.
96
On the few occasions when William did delve into specific details, he criticized
particular cities rather the Lombards as a whole, and never condemned their rulers. For
example, the poet mentioned the murders of Guaimar and Drogo tersely. He did not make
their deaths an example of Lombard treachery, as Amatus and Malaterra had, but stated
only that "one was killed by the betrayal (fraus) of his citizens and relatives in Salerno,
the other by the natives of Montilari—whom he trusted too much." Although Gisulf
also made a brief appearance in William's epic, his role as an antagonist of Robert
Guiscard was greatly scaled down, and it was principally Salerno's population, whom the
TOT
poet at one point called a gens inflda, that he portrayed negatively. Uniquely, William
did not interpret that city's clash with Robert Guiscard as being somehow symptomatic of
the shortcomings of the "Lombard people," nor did he ever explicitly condemn an
TOO
individual Lombard ruler.
Robert Guiscard's wife, the duchess Sichelgaita, was the only member of the
Lombard dynasty of Salerno whom both William of Apulia and Amatus of Montecassino
singled out for praise. She was, according to William, semperprudens, nobilis, and
•a qq
veneranda. When her life was threatened, God saved her from death, in one of the only

57 William ofApulia, Gesta, III. 466. Hugo Falcandus referred toboth the Sicilians and Apulians
as a gens infida. Falcandus, Liber, c. 12 30. The phrase itself may be an allusion to Livy. Gens infida
appeared twice in his Ab Urbe Condita. The first instance concerned Cornelius Scipio's distrust of the Boii,
a Gallic tribe held responsible for leading Hannibal into Italy: "Cornelio nee causa nee tempus agendae rei
placebat, suspecta que ei gens erat cum ob infida multa facinora turn, ut ilia vetustate obsolevissent, ob
recentem Boiorum perfidiam." Livy, Livy: Book 21, ed. Patrick Gerard Walsh (Bristol: Bristol Classical
Press, 1985), 89. Gens infidaappeared again in a Carthaginian lament, deploring reliance on unreliable
African mercenaries: "suam plebem imbellem in urbe, imbellem in agris esse; mercede parari auxilia ex
Arris, gente ad omnem auram spei mobili atque infida.'" Livy, 77ft' LiviAb urbe condita. LibriXXVIII-XXX,
ed. Patrick Gerard Walsh (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1986), 60.
88 See Amatus ofMontecassino, Storia, VIII.20. Cf. William ofApulia, Gesta, 111.431-40.
389 William, Gesta, IV.431; ibid., V.399.
97
instances of divine intervention found inthe entire poem.390 For Amatus, Sichelgaita was
noble, beautiful, and wise.391 As the mother of William's patron, and a benefactor of
Montecassino, it is unsurprising that the two writers would share this positive attitude
toward the duchess.
Malaterra, however, had nothing favorable to relate about Sichelgaita. He praised
no aspect of her, not even her lineage, and described her only as "Guaimar's daughter."
Malaterra hardly portrayed her behavior as "semper prudens," either, reporting instead
that at one point, when Robert Guiscard was away on campaign, she became so
convinced of her husband's death that, "thinking herself a widow," she fled.394 What little
Malaterra reported was therefore unflattering, and here it is worth recalling that, of all the
chroniclers of this period, he saw matters through a Norman-Sicilian lens. At the time
he wrote, his patron was nearing the end of his life and his sons were still children.
Sichelgaita's son, Roger Borsa, was nothing if not a threat to Sicily and to the young
90 There were a total of three places where thepoet ascribed an event to the hand of God. William
of Apulia, Gesta, 1.402-405 (God did not want Emperor Michael to rule the Byzantine empire any longer
and so he died); ibid., III.455 (God helped Robert Guiscard recover from wounds received during the siege
of Salerno); ibid., IV.430 (God helped Sichelgaita recover from an arrow wound at the battle for Durazzo).
God never intervened directly against the Muslims. In a reference to the First Crusade, however, the poet
noted that the soldiers fought Deo spirante. Ibid., III.455.
3 ' Amatus of Montecassino, Storia, IV. 19. "Samoillier, estoit noble deparent, belle de cors et
sage de teste."
92 Amatus discussed some of Sichelgaita's donations in his final chapter. Amatus of
Montecassino, Storia, VIII.36. Sichelgaita's generosity toward Montecassino has been studied by Patricia
Skinner, who argued that Amatus's history "could be read as much as a eulogy of her as of Robert."
Although Skinner was right in pointing out this woman's relationship with Montecassino, to claim that she
represented a central character in Amatus's text is going too far. Patricia Skinner, '"Halt, be men!':
Sikelgaita of Salerno, Gender and the Norman Conquest of Southern Italy," Gender & History 12, no. 3
(2000), 622-641.
Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, 1.30. "Filiamque Gaimari, Salernitani principis,
Sigelgaytam nomine, sibi in matrimonium copulavit."
Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, 11.27. "Uxor vero, viduationem suspicata, Tropeam
aufugit."
395 In this respect, Lucas-Avenel has correctly noted that Malaterra "n'etait pas tenu, autant que
Guillaum d'Apulie et Aime du Mont-Cassin, de se soucier des reactions lombardes." Lucas-Avenel, "La
Gens Normannorum en Italie du Sud," 241.
98
heirs of Malaterra's patron. This state of affairs would certainly explain the chronicler's
lukewarm ambivalence toward the Lombard noblewoman.
Twelfth-Century Interpretations of the Lombards
By the time that the kingdom of Sicily had been established in the year 1130, the
cultural environment on the southern Italian mainland was much different. Continuous
waves of immigrants from northern Italy and beyond the Alps were displacing the older
social configuration of the eleventh century. The ruling barons were themselves the result
of several generations of intermarriage between native Lombard and transalpine elites.
Terminological shifts found in the sources reflect the weakening of that simpler Norman-
Lombard dichotomy that had been so readily employed by writers of an earlier era.
Instead, in the texts of Alexander of Telese and Hugo Falcandus, the southern Italians
were more frequently identified by their regions and cities rather than by the term
Longobardi. It would seem that this expression, used often by eleventh-century authors,
was gradually losing its meaning through an extended process of settlement in which the
people defined as Longobardi were assimilated or marginalized. Yet although the name
"Lombard" may have been going out of fashion, many of the old stereotypes about
southern Italians showed no signs of decline.
To begin with, Alexander, the abbot of the monastery of the Holy Savior in
Telese who wrote over fifty years after Amatus, echoed Amatus's interpretation of the
fall of the Lombard regimes in the south as divinely ordained. At the outset of his history,
For more information on the resulting Franco-Lombard nobility, see Jean-Marie Martin, La
Pouille du Vf auXlT Siecle (Rome: Ecole Francaise de Rome, 1993), 524-525. On the continued process
of Franco-Norman immigration into southern Italy during the twelfth-century, and on the arrival of
transalpines generally, see ibid., 26-529.
99
he compared King Roger's conquest of southern Italy to that of the Normans in the
previous century, suggesting that on both occasions the Lord had arranged for the people
of that land to be defeated. Alexander explained that just as God had allowed
"longobardorum nequitia" to be overcome by "normannorum violentia," so He permitted
Roger II's use of the sword to check the "immensa malitia," which had renewed in those
regions.397 As seen above, Amatus applied similar expressions of evil {iniquite, malice,
and malvaiz in the Old French translation) to the Lombards, and it is not unlikely that
Alexander drew directly from the writings of his Benedictine brother.
The two writers certainly used similar models, and the abbot seems to have been
as fond of the theme of sin and divine retribution among the Lombards as the monk of
Montecassino. The author described southern Italy before the arrival of King Roger as a
land of chaos full of "murder, theft, rapine, sacrilege, adultery, perjury, the oppression of
monasteries, and contempt for men of God."39 "Indeed," Alexander asked, "what evil
{malus) was not done at that time?"400 Left to their own devices, the people had reverted
to their former state, as they had been before the coming of the Normans. God was
offended by this, the abbot wrote, and drew Roger from Sicily like a sword from its
sheath to bring the "perpetratores iniquitatum" tojustice.401 Much like Amatus,
397 Alexander of Telese, preface to Ystoria, 3.

398 Although records of monastic library holdings are unfortunately quite poor for this period, it is
worth noting that the Montecassino is only about fifty miles from Telese. Loud thought that the original
Latin term for malice that Amatus employed was "almost certainly malitia.'''' G. A. Loud, "Amatus of
Montecassino and his History of the Normans," in Mediterraneo, Mezzogiorno, Europa: Studi in onore di
Cosimo Damiano Fonseca, ed. Cosimo Damiano Fonseca et al. (Bari: M. Adda, 2004), 721.
Alexander of Telese, preface to Ystoria, 3. "Quippe omni timore abiecto, cedes hominum, furta,
rapine, sacrilegia, adulteria, periuria, necnon ecclesiarum monasteriorum oppressiones, virorum Dei
contemptus, pluraque hiis similia fieri non desinebant."
Alexander of Telese, preface to Ystoria, 3. "Quid enim tunc mali non in ipsis exercebatur?"
401 Alexander of Telese, Ystoria, 3.
100
Alexander saw his protagonist as a divine agent meant to deliver the wrath of the Lord to
the sinful southern Italians.
Aside from iniquity and evil, fear and pride were the other principal elements in
Alexander's image of this people. In that sense too, the abbot mirrored earlier stereotypes
found not just in the writings of Amatus of Montecassino, but also William of Apulia.
Like the poet, Alexander used similar words for fear (forms of the nouns timor and terror
and the verbfugere) when writing about them.402 The two words for arrogance that
Alexander most frequently used in association with southern Italians were the adjectives
superbus and obstinatus, as when he referred to the prince of Salerno's "animus
obstinatissimus."403 Superbus, it should be noted, is particularly reminiscent ofthe
language Amatus used when writing of pride among the Lombards.
The similarity with earlier authors does not end there, as Alexander of Telese also
depicted the southern Italians as treacherous. At one point he wrote of how the people of
Salerno responded to Roger's emissary with "proud speech {superbo ore)," refusing to
submit to their king.404 When the ambassador sternly rebuked their insolence, they
became "stirred up with rage {concitatifurore)" and killed the unfortunate man.4 5The
significance of such a crime can hardly be overstated. The killing of a king's dignitary
represented not only an obvious breech of diplomatic protocol, but an enormous breech
ofhonor, a crime against the monarch himself, and therefore a major act of betrayal.4
402 Expressions of fear occurred a total of eleven times with reference to southern Italians. Timor
was used in Alexander of Telese, Ystoria, 11.10; II.l 1; 11.12; 11.30 (twice). Other words included exterrita,
fugere, diffugere, territus, and perterritus, all of which appear in ibid., 11.30.
403 Superbus occurred in five instances. Alexander of Telese, Ystoria, 1.5,11.52, III. 16, 111.20, and
III.22. Obstinatus was used in ibid., 1.7, II.7,11.26, and 11.27.
404 Alexanderof Telese, Ystoria, 1.5, 8.
405 Alexanderof Telese, Ystoria, 1.5, 9.
406 Fora classic work on medieval attitudes toward diplomatic immunity, see Donald E. Queller,
The Office ofAmbassador in the Middle Ages (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967).
101
According to Assizes of Ariano, in fact, royal functionaries were given special protection,
and an attack on one of them was defined as equivalent to an attack on the king. The
image of southern Italians as untrustworthy, depraved, and arrogant, found in the writings
of both Amatus and Malaterra was therefore perpetuated by Alexander of Telese.
When discussing Roger II's conflict with the papacy, Alexander found another
instance in which the Apulians again demonstrated their unreliability. Responding to
Roger's claims to the lands of Apulia, Honorius II (1124-1130) raised an army in
southern Italy and led it against the would-be monarch. In a scene reminiscent of Civitate,
the Apulian soldiers under the command of the prince of Capua gradually began to desert
the pope.408 When Honorius discovered that some of his allies had "secretly retreated
(patenter recedunt)" and that those who remained were beginning to murmur, he cut a
deal with Roger, recognizing his sovereignty over the lands of southern Italy. Once the
remaining "barons of Apulia {Apulienses heroes)" had learned of this, they dismissed
their soldiers and returned home "indisgrace {dedecore)."410 As at Civitate a century

earlier, a papal coalition found itself undone by Apulian betrayal.
In a similar way, Hugo Falcandus stressed the treachery of southern Italians in his
own history, the Liber de Regno Sicilie. Like Alexander of Telese, Falcandus approved of
King Roger II's use of violence to suppress the savagery (ferocitas) of the rebellious
Houben, Roger II: A Ruler between East and West, 144. F. Brandileone, ed., II diritto romano
nelle leggi normanne e sveve del regno di Sicilia (Rome: Fratelli Boca, 1884), 104-105.
See Dione Clementi, Historical Commentary to Ystoria, 273. The two armies faced off in the
summer of 1128 but did not do battle. They camped on opposite banks of the River Bradano.
409 Alexander of Telese, Ystoria, 1.14.
Alexander of Telese, Ystoria, 1.14. The juxtaposition of heros, which can mean either a hero or
a nobleman, with the disgraceful word dedecus may indeed have been a subtly ironic condemnation of their
behavior. Heros was occasionally used with an ironic meaning in classical Latin. See Du Cange,
Glossarium mediae et infimae latinitatis, 850.
102
people who lived on the mainland.41' Their unruly nature was widely known, and some
members of the royal court often spoke disparagingly of the Longobardi, calling them
traitors.412 The inhabitants of Apulia were, for Falcandus, a "gens infida"—the same term
William used for the inhabitants of Salerno.413 In addition to their faithlessness, he also
described the Apulians as "shifty, inclined to commit any vile deed {mobilispronaque sit
ad quodlibetfacinus perpetrandum),"414 easily stirred up by rumors,4 5and willing to use

false language—"fables, levity, and inane speech"—as a way to deceive.416
Falcandus saw the southern Italians as not only rebellious, but militarily inept as
well. On campaign, the Longobardi displayed "wavering loyalty {ancepsfides)," and
their knights were known to be "infides milites."417 In another passage, Falcandus
recorded how, when King William I went into seclusion in the year 1156, a rumor broke
out that the monarch had died, which led to open rebellion on the mainland.
Unsurprisingly, the author assigned blame to the people of Apulia: "Then the Apulians,
that most inconstant people {Apulorum inconstantissima gens), in vain desiring liberty—

412 Falcandus, c. 53, 133. According to Falcandus, these sentiments were felt especially among the
foreign "Frankish" members of the court. For more information on these "Franci" in the kingdom of Sicily,
see Metcalfe, Muslims and Christians in Norman Sicily, 182. Metcalfe noted that the Sicilian court was
dominated by a Frankish contingent during the years 1166 to 1168.
413 Falcandus, Liber, c. 12,30.
414 Falcandus, Liber, c. 12, 30. "Interim, dum in hunc modum Apulia turbaretur, adhuc Sicilia
quiescebat, nee ullis agitabatur tumultibus; licet enim utraque gens infida, mobilis pronaque sit ad quodlibet
facinus perpetrandum, Siculi tamen cautius dissimulando celant propositum et quos oderunt blandis
adulationibus demulcent, ut improvisi ledant atrocius."
415 The reference was made to the people of Melfi, one ofthe principal towns of Apulia.
Falcandus, Liber, c. 11, 29. "Melfenses igitur, qui primis semper consueverant rumoribus excitari,
decernunt in primis, ut nulli deinceps Maionis mandato pareant, nee in urbe sua quemlibet eorum recipiant,
quos Apulie capitaneos idem prefecerat." Melfenses has been erroneously translated as "the people of
Amalfi" in the most recent English edition of the text. Cf. G. A. Loud and Thomas E. J. Wiedemann, trans.,
TheHistory ofthe Tyrants ofSicily by 'Hugo Falcandus' 1154-69 (Manchester: Manchester University
Press, 1998), 82.
4,6 Falcandus, Liber, c. 50, 126-127.
418 Other sources from the period indicate that William may have been ill at this time. Siragusa,
Liber, 13n. The rebellion was described more fully by Romuald of Salerno and John Cinammus. Ibid., 14n.
103
which they would not have been capable of retaining since they were unsuccessful in war
and be restless in peace—took up arms, formed alliances, and prepared the defense of
fortresses."41 inherently unreliable, the southern Italians did not even wait for certainty of
the king's death before initiating a revolt, but were instead easily moved to sedition by
mere hearsay.
In addition to their "great inconstancy," the image that Falcandus presented was
that of a people who were both weak in times of war and dissentious in times of peace.
This is not all that different from Malaterra's Apulians, who behaved "as if they had no
prince," "rising up in insolence," but who were poor fighters because they preferred
indulgence in relaxation to arduous campaigning.420 In sum, Falcandus portrayed the
inhabitants of southern Italy as a rabble, a people unfit for autonomy who had to be
treated with a strong hand and watchful eye. The gens Longobardorum and gens
Apulorum, whom Falcandus saw as the source of civil war, occupied one of the most
pejorative roles of any people in the entire text.
On the other hand, this author tended to describe the northern Italians {gens
Lombardi) who had immigrated into the kingdom as faithful and courageous. In spite of
their role in armed uprisings on the island of Sicily, Falcandus did not identify them as
treacherous as he did for their equally rebellious counterparts, the southern Italian
Longobardi. He emphasized instead that their violence was directed against the worst
elements of the kingdom—the crypto-Muslim officials in the royal court and the Muslim
population they protected. Rather than portray them as cowardly traitors, Falcandus
Falcandus, Liber, c. 3, 14. "Tunc Apulorum inconstantissima gens, libertatem adipisci frustra
desiderans, quam nee adeptam quidem retinere sufficeret, ut que nee bello multum valeat nee in pace possit
esse tranquilla, capescit arma, societates contrahit, castellis muniendis operam dat."
420
Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, IV.26, 105.
104
repeatedly stressed their audacia and virtus on the battlefield, even when they were
fighting the king's own troops.421

The author's apparent willingness to forgive, or even praise, clear instances of
treason seem to stem from the fact that the northern Italian settlers represented a
counterbalance to the power of the palace eunuchs, whom he hated. In that regard,
Falcandus considered their rebellions on Sicily justifiable, apparently in a way that the
uprisings on the mainland were not. He portrayed their leader, Roger "Sclavus," a man
who engineered the wholesale slaughter of Muslims in the eastern side of the island
(described as repentini impetus, or sudden attacks), in a rather positive light despite his
armed resistance to the monarchy.422 Referring to Roger Sclavus as a person of "bravery
and boldness {virtus et audacia)" Falcandus reported that this rebel commander
encouraged the Lombardi to resist "the tyranny and atrocity of the king."423 For their part,
the north Italians loyally responded that they would follow him "constantly and bravely
{constanter etaudacissime)" and "through any danger."424
Different forms of audacia were used for the Lombardi in four separate places. Falcandus,
Liber, c. 21, 70; c. 23, 73-74 (twice). Virtus appeared in ibid., c. 21, 70; c. 23, 74.
2Roger Sclavus was the son of Count Simon of Policastro, a member of the northern Italian
Aleramici dynasty. Siragusa, Liber, 70n.1. It is unclear how he acquired his epithet. Metcalfe, The Muslims
ofMedieval Italy, 191n9. On the Aleramici generally, see Renato Bordone, "Affermazione personale e
sviluppi dinastici del gruppo parentale aleramico: il marchese Bonifacio "del Vasto" (sec. xi-xii)," in
Formazione e strutture dei ceti dominanti nei Medioevo: marchesi, conti e visconti nei Regno italico, secc.
IX-X11 (Rome: Istituto storico italiano per il Medio Evo, 1988), 29-44; Henri Bresc, "Gli Aleramici in
Sicilia: alcune nuove prospettive," in Bianca Lancia d'Agliano ed. Renato Bordone (Alessandria: Edizione
dell'orso, 1992), 147-163.
The phrase repentiniimpetus, nevertheless, would appear to denote savagery. Falcandus made use
of it only on this occasion, but it was employed by Cicero, for example, with reference to Catiline's
planned attack on the Republic. In a legal sense, twelfth-century usage of impetus relates to disturbances of
domestic peace. Marcus Tullius Cicero, M. Tulli Ciceronis De DomaSua adPontifices Oratio, ed. Robert
George Nisbet (New York: Arno Press, 1979), 6. Niemeyer Mediae LatinitatisLexicon Minus, 514.
Falcandus, Liber, c. 23, 73. "Simulque regis exponebat atrocitatem et tyrannidem in subiectos."
Falcandus, Liber, c. 23, 73. "At illi constanter et audacissime spoponderunt, se nunquam eius
defuturos imperio neque difficultatem aliquam aut periculum, quominus ei pareant, causaturos."
105
This rebellion failed, however, and according to Falcandus, the Lombardi were
subsequently victimized by the king's ministers. He reported, for example, that qa'id
Peter targeted the north Italian communities of Sicily because of their wealth, calling
innocent men traitors (proditores) simply in order to seize their property.425 Falcandus
made certain to emphasize that the Lombardi opposed the eunuchs, writing that, far from
being treacherous, they "detested the evil and wickedness oftraitors."426 In discussing the
royal court's dissolution into factions, moreover, the author noted their loyalty (fides) to
the chancellor, a fierce opponent of the eunuchs, and they promised to follow him even if
it meant the risk of death.
Falcandus therefore treated the settlers from northern Italy with a combination of
sympathy and admiration. Always in the right, the Lombardi generally avoided the ire of
this writer's pen. When the northern Italians massacred the Saracens, even when they
fought against the king, they were never assigned labels like infida or inconstantissima,
which the southerners did receive. On the contrary, the violence of the northern Italians
was romanticized as courageous, and the punishment they received was portrayed as
unjust. For Falcandus, this was a people who could do no wrong.
Falcandus, Liber, c. 14, 86. Another crypto-Muslim official was said to have given Peter this
idea: "Desiring to gain more fully the favor of the eunuchs, he wrongly told qa'id Peter that there were
many traitors throughout Sicily, and that they especially dwelt in the towns of the Lombardi, who both
abounded in resources and possessed very bountiful estates, and he requested that he be allowed to seize
them and extort whatever money they had from them (Volens autem plenius eunuchorum gratiam
promereri, falso suggessit gayto Petro multos proditorum per Siciliam maximeque per Lombardorum
oppidaremansisse, qui et opibus affluerent et largissima prediapossiderent, impetravitque ut eosdem
liceret ei capere et quantam posset ab eis pecuniam extorquere)." As a result, "he condemned many
innocent men throughout Sicily (multos viros innoxios per diversa loca Sicilie condempnavit)."
Falcandus, Liber, c. 55, 155. "Interea Randacini, Vacarienses, Capiciani, Nicosiani,
Maniacenses ceterique Lombardi qui cancellariii partes ob multa eius beneficia tuebantur, haud dubiam
proditorum invidiam ac scelera detestati, legatos Panormum miserunt."
427 Falcandus, Liber, c. 42, 118. This statement came immediately after the detail that the Muslim
official who suggested extorting money from the north Italians had been brutally punished by the
chancellor. "Hoc factum omnibus Sicilie populis maximeque Lombardis, quos innumeris ille malis
attriverat, adeo placuit ut universi faterentur, si necesse foret, pro cancellario se mortis periculum
subdituros."
106
Calabrians
One other southern Italian group, the Calabrians, or Calabrenses, who dwelt in
the region west of Apulia, merits some discussion as well. For both eleventh- and twelfth-
century writers, they tended to be depicted in a bad light. Because of his focus on Roger
I, who was count of Calabria, Malaterra had considerably more commentary to offer
about the inhabitants of this region than other authors, and for the most part treated them
with scorn, referring to them as a "genus semper perfidissimum." For him, Calabria
was a hostile land with a hostile people, where the very air itself was bad.429
Among all of its inhabitants, Malaterra singled out the people of Gerace as
especially treacherous and cruel. This town in southern Calabria proved such a perennial
source of unrest that it twice rebelled against the Normans, the second time nearly taking
Robert Guiscard's life.430 According to Malaterra, Basil, one ofthe leading men of
Gerace, invited the duke to dine at his house, and he agreed, entering the city and not
suspecting evil {malus) because the inhabitants had previously sworn their loyalty to
him.431 When the citizens learned that Robert Guiscard himself was being hosted in their
city, they rioted, killed Basil, and impaled his wife on a stake.432 Malaterra described the
bloody scene in a clipped series of vivid expressions: "undique concurrentibus," "tota
urbs tumultuatur;" "tanto furore crudeli ense perimi," "inordinatus furor," "furenti
Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, 1.28. It is interesting to note that he used the same
expression, genus semper perfidissimum, for the Byzantines and Lombards as well. Malaterra, De rebus
gestis Rogerii, 11.29, 40; ibid., 1.13, 14.
The count and many of his men came down with a fever at Gerace due to "insolito aere
corrupto" and at Scribla Robert Guiscard's men were said to have suffered because of the "infirmitas loci et
aeris." Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, 11.23, 36; ibid., 1.16, 16.
430 Malaterra, Derebus gestis Rogerii, 1.32, 73; ibid., 11.24.
107
impetu."433 It was a vision of chaos, with people killed "cives a civibus, amicos ab
amicis, praelatos a subditis."434 It should also be noted that this isthe only time when this
author made use of the word impietas, meaning treason or sin, which he employed in this
passage twice. The author never applied this word, which could even be interpreted as
"faithless," to non-Christians.435
In the end, the episode gave Malaterra an opportunity to describe how his hero
Roger saved Robert from death, as he reportedly camped outside Gerace with his soldiers
and threatened them until the "Geracenses territi" relinquished his brother.436 Afterward,
Count Roger decided to build a fortress there "because he considered its citizens less
faithful and more hateful than others {quia eos, quasi infldeliores, caeteris exosiores
habebat)" but they paid him off, dissuading him "with money rather than arms."437
Malaterra's Calabrians were therefore not only cruel and given to horrible rage, oxfuror,
but also cowardly, terrified by mere words, and inclined to use money to combat their
enemies.
Malaterra extended Calabrian cowardice to other, lighter episodes as well. At
Bisignano, Robert Guiscard kidnapped one of its leading citizens, Peter, who was not
only a man of great wealth but a man of great physical size {enormitate et mole
A T ()
corporis). He did this, Malaterra wrote, by "sometimes carrying him, sometimes

435 Other eleventh-century writers did use impietas when discussing the Saracens. Forexample,
John the Deacon referred to their impietas in his description of their siege of Bari. John the Deacon, Istoria
Veneticorum, III. 12: "Circa hec tempora Sarraceni advenientes, Gradensem urbem capere conati sunt; sed
civibus fortiter decertantibus, Sarracenorum impietas non prevaluit."
437 Malaterra, Derebus gestis Rogerii, 11.28. "Pacto cum comite facto, a castello, quod foedere
ceperat, pecunia, potiusquam armis, ilium avertunt."
108
rolling him, sometimes dragging him" back to his soldiers.439 The Calabrians,
desperantes and "not inclined to fight {minime certare praenitentes)" fled back to their
fortress.440 After this, all Calabrians (identified as a genusformidolosissimum) "trembled
before him {ante eum tremebant)."441 The duke's unfortunate captive was then forced to
pay his own ransom, having been abandoned by his people.
Unfortunately, Amatus of Montecassino and William of Apulia wrote almost
nothing about Calabria, but, where they did mention the people who inhabited it, they
depicted them as fearful. Amatus, for example, included a brief version of the story of
Peter's capture in his own history, writing that when Robert seized Peter, "the Normans
ran and the Calabrians fled."442 Although William of Apulia left the anecdote out of his
poem, he did twice mention the Calabrians becoming terrified {terrentur). Cowardice
was not therefore an attribute that only Malaterra ascribed to this group.
The town of Reggio was the exception to the rule. Malaterra wrote that its citizens
fought against Roger bravely (fortiter) and "as if for their very lives."444 It was not until
the count personally killed one of the defenders—a giant of a man who had been
insulting the Normans—that the people of Reggio became "territi" and made a settlement
with the Normans. It was hardly a complete victory, though, as the rulers of the city and
439 Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, 1.17, 17. "Guiscardus, enormitate et mole corporis illius
inspecta . . . Petrum per medium corripiens, collo suppositum versus suos asportare coepit. . . Guiscardus
Petrum, enerviter reluctantem, interdum portando, interdum volutando, interdum trahendo, usque ad suos
perduxit."
440 Malaterra, Derebus gestis Rogerii, 1.17, 17-18.
442 Amatus of Montecassino, Storia, III.10, 123. "Et corirent li Normant, et foirent cil de Calabre."
Amatus's version moralized the episode however, with the duke repenting for what he did, confessing that
he had sinned, arguing that his poverty had compelled him to do it, and later paying Peter back. Ibid.,
111.10, 123;IV.17.
443 William of Apulia, Gesta, 11.325; IV.3 73.
109
their followers were allowed to leave and retain control of neighboring Squillace. Even
at the end of Roger's campaigning, when he had instilled fear through the rest of Calabria
and there was no other fortress that dared to resist, Squillace remained unsubdued. It
would be wrong to call these favorable images, but the fact that the defenders had
resisted, arrived at a negotiated settlement with the Normans, and retained a certain
amount of autonomy does make it clear that they valued their independence.
Leaving aside Malaterra's mixed image of the Calabrians, it is interesting that, a
century later, Hugo Falcandus associated the people of Calabria with a combination of
vices and virtues too. On the positive side, Falcandus explained that Calabria only slowly
gave in to the turmoil that was shaking the rest of southern Italy: "Calabria, whose faith
had formerly been accustomed to sway (yacillare) only with great difficulty, was
beginning to tremble when the storms were now raging inApulia." 7This might seem to
indicate that Falcandus favored the Calabrians, and even led one scholar to argue that the
author must have been a native of that region.448 Yet there is more to the picture, and
further into the narrative the image of this group becomes much darker.
Specifically, Falcandus later associated the Calabrians with Greek perfidy and
showed them to be violent and greedy. He reported that multi quoque Calabrorum took
part in a conspiracy aimed at overthrowing the king's chancellor.449 Reflecting on this,

447 Falcandus, Liber, c. 12, 31. "Calabria, iam ingruentibus Apulie procellis, quati ceperat, cuius
antea fides difficillime consueverat vacillare."
448 C. A. Garufi, Roberto diSan Giovanni, maestro notaio e il 'Liber de Regno Sicilie', inArchivio
storico per la Sicilia VIII (Palermo: Presso la R. Deputazione, 1942), 9, 50. According to Garufi, Falcandus
was "nessun siciliano di sicuro," but rather a Calabrian. See also Loud and Wiedemann, trans. The History
of the Tyrants ofSicily, 85n58.
449 Falcandus, Liber, c. 53, 132-133. "Magna pars civium Henrico comiti, suadente Bartholomeo
Parisino qui plurimum apud Messanenses poterat, occulte iuravit. Multi quoque Calabrorum, qui Messanam
audito regis adventu confluxerant, eisdem erant sacramentorum nexibus irretiti."
110
Falcandus wrote: "but the outcome of that matter showed that their faith wavered
(yacillare) with Greek perfidy {Greca perfidia) and piratical fickleness {levitate
piratica)."450 The passage connected the Calabrians to several undesirable characteristics,

and also alluded to the earlier description of them through the use of the verb vacillare.
Later, after the conspiracy was unmasked and its leader had been arrested, some of the
traitors were forced across the straits of Messina. Marching through Calabria unarmed,
they were set upon by Greci spe lucri and left for dead.451 The people ofCalabria were
therefore twice linked to Greeks, a group Falcandus viewed with utter disdain. His
multifaceted image of the Calabrians—perfidious, piratical, and sometimes loyal -was
thus far from flattering.
Bari
There are, furthermore, some relevant observations to be made about the powerful
port city of Bari, located on the western shores of the Adriatic. Long the capital of
Byzantium's Apulian catapanate, it was eventually captured by Robert Guiscard in 1071.
The city put up a bitter resistance, but William of Apulia was the only author to express
any admiration for the bravery of the Baresi. The other chroniclers looked at them with
great scorn, evidently viewing the metropolis as a seat of rebellion. This is especially
450 Falcandus, Liber, c. 53, 132. "Verum exitus rei fidem eorum ostendit tarn greca perfidia quam
levitate piratica vacillare."
451 Falcandus, Liber, c. 53, 138. "Greci vero quod Messane gestum fuerat audientes, spe lucri
fugientibus occurrebant et multis eos verberibus affligentes, tandem saucios, nudos omniumque rerum
inopes dimittebant; quorum magna pars in Solanie silve nivibus perierunt hiemis asperitate consumpti."
Ill
clear in the three different accounts of the siege of Bari (1068-1071) offered by the
eleventh-century authors.452
Malaterra identified thisfamosissima urbs as rebellious {rebellis) to Duke Robert
Guiscard, despite the fact that its formal allegiance had always been to the Byzantine
emperor.453 The duke decided to take it by force, and when he had surrounded the city, its
citizens showed their contempt {despectus) by piling their wealth on the walls in an effort
to goad the enemy army.454 Robert simply thanked them for the offer and asked that the
treasures be kept safe until they were in his possession, then launched his attack, which
instilled the city with dread {metus).455 Realizing that they would be unable to defeat their
enemies with force {vis), the inhabitants turned to treachery and deceit, fraus and dolus,
paying a certain fickle man {quidam laevitatis) to stab the duke with a poisoned blade.
The man entered the enemy camp craftily {dolose), tried to carry out this bad deed
(facinus), but failed because God protected the duke. 5

The Baresi were thwarted a second time when, by ostentatiously celebrating the
news that a relief force was on its way, they inadvertently alerted the besiegers, who were
then able to anticipate and drive offthe incoming Byzantine fleet.457 Bari's citizens were
therefore made to look foolish and arrogant—taunting an enemy they could not defeat
and rejoicing over aid that never came. Although, in reality, the city had held out for an
incredible three years, Malaterra was not about to recognize the bravery of the defenders
452 Forgeneral information on Bari in the eleventh century, see Vera von Falkenhausen, "Bari
bizantina: profilo di un capoluogo di provincia (secoli ix-xi)," in Spazio, societd, potere nell'Italia dei
Comuni, ed. G. Rossetti (Naples: Liguori, 1986), 195-227.
112
(something he did do for other enemies, such as the Muslims).458 Instead, he showed that
they possessed neither cunning nor strength, two of Robert Guiscard's most renowned
attributes, and that they were overcome as a result.
Amatus was equally unflattering, and portrayed the city as increasingly divided by
factions over the course of the siege. The leader of the "pro-Byzantine" party was
eventually murdered by his rivals, who favored capitulation to Robert Guiscard. This
fifth column even supplied the duke with intelligence about conditions behind the
walls.460 The emperor, meanwhile, could not send reliefbecause the Greeks were too
afraid to engage the Normans in battle, and he eventually had to settle for a band of
mercenaries who were easily defeated.461 In the end, the group advocating surrender
seized control and handed Bari over to the duke's forces.462 Whereas Malaterra depicted
the Baresi as treacherous in their attempted assassination of Guiscard, Amatus believed
treachery was internal, and reported that the fall of the city was orchestrated from within.
In the twelfth century, Alexander of Telese recognized Bari as an unruly place
too. Prince Grimoald of Bari was one of King Roger II's principal rivals and took part in
an alliance of mainland nobles who resisted the monarchy.463 Grimoald had joined with
enemies of the king {inimicis suis consenserat) and scorned fealty {contempta eius
fidelitate), so Roger besieged Bari.464 Alexander took care to point out that the city fell
after justthree weeks—whereas it had taken Robert Guiscard three years to capture.465
458 Consider, for example, the strong resistance at both Messina and Centuripe. Malaterra, De
rebus gestis Rogerii, 11.6; 11.15.
460 Amatus of Montecassino, Storia, V.27, 249-251.
64 Alexander of Telese, Ystoria, 11.19, 31.
113
The defeated prince was hauled off to Sicily in chains, but this did not prevent further
trouble. Alexander reported that the barenses cives later planned to rebel, having killed
some Muslim builders sent to construct a royal citadel to oversee the city. The
uprising was only averted by another personal visit from the king, who consoled the
Baresi and agreed to meet their demands.467 Labeling the citizens ira commoti and cives
contradicentes, Alexander made their disloyalty highly apparent.
Hugo Falcandus's image of Bari was much the same. Roger II's citadel was
eventually built, but the Baresi subsequently destroyed it in a rebellion during the reign of
his son and successor, William I. The king arrived with his army and informed the
citizens as they begged forgiveness that "you did not spare my house and I will certainly
not spare yours."468 Bari was demolished and its inhabitants dispersed, anevent that
terrified rebels throughout Apulia.469 Revolts aside, it is also useful to recall that the
king's Chancellor Maio of Bari, the amir of amirs and one of the most evil characters in
the narrative (he was identified as a monstrum), was associated with that city: Falcandus
claimed that Maio's father had been an oil vender there.47
466 Alexanderof Telese, Ystoria, 11.34.

467 Alexanderof Telese, Ystoria, 11.34.
468 Falcandus, Liber, c. 8, 21. "Quiadomui mee parcere noluistis, certe nee ego vestrus sum
domibus parciturus."
470 Maio's father, Leo, was actually a senior official (protoiudex) in Bari. Sirgagusa Liber, 7n2.
Maio's worst crime was plotting against the king. Falcandus, preface to Liber, 7-8. "[The king] made Maio
of Bari the great amir. He was a man of humble birth who, although at first a court notary, gradually
arrived at the office of chancellor. A monster, certainly no greater curse nor any greater threat to the realm
than he could be found (Maionem quoque barensem, humili ortum genere, qui cum primum in curia
notarius extitisset, gradatim ad cancellariatus pervenerat dignitatem, magnum admiratum instituit.
Monstrum utique quo nulla pestis immanior, nulla ad regni perniciem ac subversionem poterat efficacior
inveniri)." For more information on the historical Maio of Bari, the amir of amirs, see Metcalfe, The
Muslims ofMedieval Italy, 182-184. Metcalfe suggested that the chancellor's alleged plot to kill the king
was "either a malicious exaggeration or a figurative flourish" on the part of Falcandus.
114
Only in William of Apulia's text was Bari at all praised. For him, it was opibus
ditata, robore plena, unrivalled in opulentia.41 The city's defenders responded to Robert
Guiscard's demands not with contempt {despectus), as Malaterra reported, but stern
replies {austera responsa). They did not hide behind their walls: "cives non intra moenia
clausi."472 When the duke attacked, the Baresi were "not slow to combat {non ad
certamina segnes)" and fought back {repugnantes), standing in front of their walls,
putting some ofthe enemy to flight and casting others down with their blows.473 William,
always one for animal metaphor, compared the two sides to boars locked in combat,
writing that "uterque resistit acriter, et neuter vult cedere."474 While including the episode
about Robert Guiscard's attempted assassination, the poet, unlike Malaterra, made sure to
point out that the would-be killer was not Barese, but a foreigner, "promtus ad omne
malum, levis, iracundus et audax," who had suffered a certain serious injury from the
duke.475 William thus rescued Bari's image: instead of portraying its people as "rebelles,"
he highlighted their stout resistance and distanced them from the inglorious act of trying
to murder an enemy in cold blood.
Pisa and Venice
Some further differences and similarities arise in how the chroniclers portrayed
Pisa and Venice, the two great maritime states of the eleventh century. To begin with the
former, Malaterra depicted the "gens pisana" as greedy and weak.476 They were a group

476 They were identified as a gens in Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, 11.34.
115
intent on revenge, who twice tried to repay injuriae illatae, but whose military endeavors
never fared well.
Malaterra reported that they sent a naval expedition to Sicily after their merchants
suffered injuries from the Muslims of Palermo. Hoping for vindicta, they offered
assistance to Roger, who told them to wait {sustinere).411 Malaterra explained that, as the
Pisans were "ex consuetudine" more attached to commercialibus lucris than to bellicis
exercitiis, they decided not to delay "lest their customary profits {lucris assuetis) be
deprived any longer." 478 Yet, arriving at Palermo, they dreaded {exhorrere) the number
of enemies and would not leave their ships, so they simply cut the chain that blocked the
port and "as is the custom of their people {more suae gentis)" returned to Pisa
considering this a major achievement.479 When the Pisans later suffered "injuriae" while
doing business in Africa, they brought together a force and took over much of King
Themin's royal city.480 Malaterra again explained that, since they lacked "virtus," they
40 1
offered the city to Count Roger, knowing they could not hold onto it themselves. On
this second occasion, the count also put them off {differre), and King Themin eventually
4.89
bought peace from his enemies. Malaterra's Pisans, repeatedly victimized for their lack
of strength, were apparently more interested in money than anything else.
Although criticized by Malaterra, they fared much better under the pen of
Amatus, who highlighted their bravery and piety. The city sent an expedition to Palermo,
he reported, not seeking revenge, but because Duke Robert Guiscard had "asked and

480 Malaterra, Derebus gestis Rogerii, IV.3, 86. This victory, won at Mahdia in 1088, was
celebrated in the Carmen de victoria Pisanorum, for which see E. Du Meril, ed., Poesies populaires latines
du moyen age (Paris: F. Didot 1847), 239-251.
116
requested help from the citizens ofPisa."483 They did not fear the enemy as in Malaterra's
account, but rather, after cutting the chain across Palermo's harbor, some went on land
and some stayed on the ships inorder to attack the city on two fronts.4 Their
contribution was valued by the duke, who rewarded them with grandissimes domps
before they returned home. The Pisans were also pious and—better still—enemies of the
wicked Prince Gisulf of Salerno.485 Beset by stormy seas, a group of Pisan sailors called
on St. Matthew, who calmed the water for them. They then went immediately to Salerno
and made donations to the church where the saint's body was housed. Gisulf, however,
promptly had this lot arrested and tortured, seized their goods, and held them for
ransom.486 Amatus never presented the inhabitants of Pisa as greedy merchants, and here
he came close to making martyrs out of them: they risked everything, even their lives, by
making a pilgrimage.
For Alexander of Telese, on the other hand, Pisa posed a visible threat to King
Roger's fledgling monarchy and earned his contempt as a result. Its citizens were a
disruptive force that supplied the rebellious southern barons with mercenaries and offered
refuge to those seeking asylum. Fortunately for Sicily, Pisa only sometimes delivered on
its promises: King Roger's enemies requested military support from the city four times,
but assistance only materialized twice.487 The author made it equally clear that the Pisans
fought for money alone—the prince of Capua expended thousands of silver marks to
raise a force of Pisan mercenaries that acquired further wealth by pillaging southern

484 Amatus of Montecassino, Storia, V.28., 256.
487 Alexander of Telese, Ystoria, 11.37; 11.56; 111.24; IV.5.
117
Italy.488 Alexander called the Pisans piratae, writing that they "invaded {invaserunt)"
Amalfi, which they "wickedly sacked {impie depopulantur)," transporting omnia spolia
to their ships.489 From a historical perspective, such an act is unsurprising given that
Amalfi was one of Pisa's principal commercial rivals inthis period.490 Impietas,
moreover, was an attribute Malaterra assigned to the citizens of Gerace when they
viciously tried to kill Robert Guiscard.
In the end, the royal army finally defeated the Pisans on land, capturing or killing
their soldiers, while those who had stayed behind on the ships fled timore coacti and
weighed down with innumeris spoliis.491 Ultimately, then, the prince of Capua had
summoned this mercenary force in vain, incassum.492 The same basic vices espoused by
Malaterra reappear in the pages of Alexander's history; in times of war, the people of
Pisa displayed only avarice and incompetence.
Though William of Apulia did not mention the Pisans, he (along with Malaterra)
gave ample treatment to their Adriatic rivals, the Venetians. These people were depicted
as a greedy but ferocious gens.49 The poet identified Venice as "populosa Venetia,"
"dives opum divesque virorum," whose inhabitants were skilled and brave: "Non ignara
quidem belli navalis et audax / Gens erat haec."494 Living onthe water, the Venetians
were unrivalled in naval combat: "Semper aquis habitant; gens nulla valentior ista /
488 Alexander of Telese, Ystoria, 11.56; 111.25-26.

489 The author identified the Pisans as "pirates" in a disparaging sense in Alexander of Telese,
Ystoria, 111.27. The description of Amalfi's destruction can be found in ibid., 111.25.
On Amalfi during the Norman period generally, see Mario Del Treppo, "Amalfi: una citta del
Mezzogiomo nei secoli IX-XIV," in Amalfimedioevale, ed. Mario Del Treppo and Alfonso Leone (Naples:
Giannini, 1977), 1-175.
n William referred tothe Venetians as the Venetica gens. William ofApulia, Gesta, IV.297-298.
" William of Apulia, Gesta, IV'.277-279.
494
118
Aequoreis bellis, ratiumque per aequora ductu."495 In Byzantium's war with Robert
Guiscard, the Venetians proved themselves a gens fida, sending a fleet to intercept his
ships.496 They attacked the Normans audacter, and, as they were more experienced in
naval combat, put them to flight.497 In the ensuing lines, however, the poet revealed that
Venetian bravery was matched by extraordinary greed.
William made this explicit when narrating their role at Durazzo, a town in
Dalmatia that Robert Guiscard put to siege and which they garrisoned on the emperor's
behalf.498 The poet mentioned that, during the siege, the Venetian fleet inflicted cruel
punishments {cruciatvariispoenis) on those who deserted the duke's camp, handing
them over to the Greeks {traduntur Achivis).499 Although William twice emphasized
Venetian loyalty to the empire {imperioparent, gens fida), he nevertheless showed that it
was a Venetian who betrayed the city, allowing the duke's troops to enter at night in
exchange for rewards (which included Robert's niece).500 The inhabitants cried out
against the malefida Venetica, and the Venetians who were not part of the conspiracy
were killed, captured, or fled without offering resistance.501 After taking Durazzo,
Robert's forces moved on to Corfu, and the Venetian fleet returned, spending fifteen days
495 William of Apulia, Gesta, IV.284-285

498 The battle of Durazzo of 18 October 1081 was a key episode in the struggle for the Straits of
Otranto, which controlled access to the Adriatic, and was fought between the Byzantine army under the
command of Emperor Alexius I Comnenus and the Normans under Robert Guiscard. The imperial army,
comprised of Varangians, Normans, Turks, Macedonians, and "Manicheans" was defeated, but the arrival
of the Venetian fleet robbed Robert Guiscard of a total victory, as his ships were driven off and the
Venetians were then able to enter the port town and guard it. Robert Guiscard managed to take the city in
the following year, apparently gaining entry through intrigue. The classic work on this remains F.
Chalandon, Essai sur le regne d'Alexis f Comnene: (1081-1118), 78-81. See also Ostrogorski, History of
the Byzantine State, 357-359. On Venice's role during this event, see Frederic C. Lane, Venice: A
Maritime Republic (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973), 28-29.
500 William of Apulia, Gesta, IV.463^67.
119
TAT
looting the city. They sailed on to Corfu and met up with their Byzantine allies, but
many promptly returned to Venice because they felt they were neglecting their business
CAT
{negotid). They were not then, all things considered, true friends of the empire.
Identifying the people of Venice as bothfida and malefida, the poet's message would
seem to have been that their loyalty was fluid, and just one of the many commodities they
traded in.
For Malaterra, the Venetians were likewise dangerous to have as enemies, but
even more dangerous as allies. Obeying the orders of the empire, they rushed their fleet
to Durazzo iussafideliter complentes and combated the Normans fiercely {acerrime).
However, Malaterra placed substantially less emphasis on Venetian martial prowess than
William of Apulia, and instead stressed their unwillingness to fight fairly. Outmatched in
battle, Malaterra's Venetians were overcome and asked for a truce, which the duke
granted. The Normans were outwitted (falsa pollicatione delusi, doli ignarus), however,
because the enemy silently outfitted their ships overnight and renewed the attack at dawn.
After scattering the Norman fleet and gaining control of Durazzo, the Venetians again
attacked acerrime, this time under cover of darkness, and made use of Greek fire, another
trick, or dolus.
Malaterra, like William, similarly remarked upon the betrayal of Durazzo by a
venetianus quidam, a man of avarice {avaritia), sick with cupidity {cupiditate aeger),
who was easily corrupted (facile corruptus) by Robert Guiscard's promises. Describing
the capture of the city, which this Venetian had brought about, Malaterra could observe
502 William of Apulia, Gesta, V. 84-85.

503 William of Apulia, Gesta, V. 100-105.
120
with satisfaction that "there is no more dangerous enemy than a familiar one." Where
William of Apulia had noted Venetian bravery and skill at arms, in addition to their
cunning, Malaterra pointed mainly just to the latter attribute, which he highlighted
through repeated use of the word dolus, meaning trickery or artifice. Indeed, the author
reflected that, whereas the Normans had struck fear in the Venetians through their
strenuitas in battle, the Venetians struck fear through dolus.505

The diversity of attitudes expressed toward the cities of northern Italy in these
chronicles reflect the unique concerns of these writers. Malaterra, a newcomer from
across the Alps, always took the worst view of Italy's native inhabitants. He treated the
Pisans, who actually offered help to Count Roger, with contempt for their foolish and
inept behavior, thereby excusing the fact that his patron twice allowed a potentially
advantageous alliance to pass by him. Alexander of Telese, who saw the destruction
wrought by Pisan mercenaries during the kingdom of Sicily's civil war in the 1130s,
viewed them as wicked marauders. Amatus took the most favorable outlook toward Pisa,
presumably because its merchants suffered at the hands of his story's great antihero,
Gisulf of Salerno. In William of Apulia's eyes, the people of Venice, erstwhile allies of
the Byzantine Empire, belonged to that class of worthy adversaries who added drama and
heroism to his epic poem's battle scenes. Malaterra, who was writing to praise Roger I
and not his brother Robert Guiscard or his abortive Aegean campaign, had little need to
portray the Venetians as anything but wily tricksters who were in the end outsmarted by
the even wilier duke.
504 Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, III.28, 74.

505 Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, III.26, 73.
121
Conclusions
The chroniclers of both the eleventh and twelfth centuries tended to regard the
natives of southern Italy with disapproval. Geoffrey Malaterra, to begin with, clearly had
no difficulty describing the Lombards in negative terms. Yet, since events on the
mainland were peripheral to his storyline, which focused on Roger I's campaigns in
Sicily, he did not give them as much treatment as Amatus of Montecassino. Malaterra, as
a foreigner living outside the mainland and in the employ of the count of Sicily, was not
obliged to treat the Lombards with any measure of respect. It makes perfect sense that he
would therefore condemn the southern Italians holistically for their apparent refusal to
accept foreign dominion.
Amatus based his depiction of the Lombards on his religious interpretation of
history, which treated their downfall as an act of God. He attributed their loss of divine
favor to their especially sinful behavior, and was able to make examples out of the
wickedness of their rulers. The fact that Montecassino had suffered Lombard depredation
in both distant and living memory must surely have provided this monastic author with
all the inspiration he required.506 Indeed, Amatus carefully described how "li pervers
prince" Pandulf IV of Capua used his authority to oppress the abbey for many years prior
CAT
to his defeat by the Normans. The Cassinese historian's condemnation of the
"perversity" of the Lombard people may have been slightly tempered by Montecassino's
relationship with Robert Guiscard's wife, the duchess Sichelgaita, but it did not prevent
him from castigating men like her brother, Gisulf.
506 The first attack on Montecassino was in the sixth century. Fora briefhistorical overview, see
Wolf, Making History, 70-85.
507 Amatus of Montecassino, Storia, 1.35-38.
122
Furthermore, Amatus denigrated the Lombards despite that fact that his patron,
Abbot Desiderius, was a Lombard, and even though he was himself, in all likelihood, a
member of this gens as well. Here, therefore, is a case where monastic loyalties
superseded cultural ones. Montecassino had endured the oppression of the princes of
Salerno, and by the late eleventh century stood to gain more from a partnership with the
Normans. Amatus made a politically wise decision by writing in favor of the new power
in the region. He went so far as to depict Gisulf II in an alliance with the devil, and to
interpret the collapse of Lombard autonomy as the result of divine providence. For the
inverse reason, Gisulf s sister, Sichelgaita, was the only one to earn his praise—because
of herpositive relationship with the monastery.
If Amatus was constrained by political concerns, William was even more so.
What little denigration of the Lombards he did engage in is particularly striking given
that he wrote for Roger Borsa, the half-Lombard half-Norman duke of Apulia.
William's patron derived much of his legitimacy to rule over southern Italy from his
blood connection to the native princes of southern Italy: Gisulf was his uncle, and
Guaimar his grandfather.509 Inthat respect, William found himself in a far more delicate
position than either Amatus or Malaterra. He had to address how the Normans came to
power without blatantly dishonoring their Lombard predecessors. Thus, although he
admitted that the soldiers of southern Italy acted like cowards at the debacle of Civitate,
he made a scapegoat out of the men of the March of Fermo, and elsewhere avoided other
Although the poet generally positive, it is clear from this analysis that William of Apulia did
occasionally find fault with the people of Italy, as when he referred to the soldiers at Civitate as a
Longobardorum fugax turba, or when he commented on the lies that the Apulians used to lure a papal army
to fight on their behalf. In that respect, Mathieu's comment that there are no expressions of contempt for
the Italians seems unjustified. C.f. Mathieu, introduction to Gesta, 21.
509 Mathieu, introduction to Gesta, 13-14.
123
unpleasant details (such as Gisulf s unhappy relationship with Robert Guiscard) that his
prose contemporaries chose to highlight.
The hostilities and sympathies felt toward native Italians by the various authors
appear to have been in large part repeated in their depictions of the citizens of the city-
states of Bari, Pisa, and Venice. Malaterra, the most pro-Norman author, derided Bari
even though its people put up a stalwart defense, and he degraded Pisa despite the fact
that its citizens had repeatedly proffered their help to Count Roger. Venice for Malaterra
was successful in its naval battles with the Normans only because its forces fought
unfairly. Amatus in large part shared Malaterra's negative opinions about the Baresi, and
probably only sympathized with the Pisans because of their conflict with the prince of
Salerno. Alexander of Telese, on the other hand, remained quite hostile to Pisa because of
the threat it posed to King Roger II's fledgling monarchy. William of Apulia was the sole
source to provide a favorable view of Bari, portraying the city as a boar locked in combat
with Robert Guiscard, and he similarly praised the Venetians for their bravery in battle.
The poet was, in nearly every case, more favorable to the people of Italy than any of his
prose counterparts.
As far as the language of the twelfth-century historians is concerned, Alexander
of Telese evidently found the phrase Longobardi a less useful term of reference but
nonetheless viewed the people of southern Italy in much the same way as his
predecessors. They were sinful (as Amatus had shown), treacherous (a theme of
Malaterra's), and easily frightened (William of Apulia). This would seem to indicate that
Alexander drew directly on one or more of these earlier authors, but it is also plausible
124
that some of these concepts may have been genuine stereotypes associated with the
inhabitants of southern Italy.
The frequent uprisings that Hugo Falcandus observed undoubtedly inspired him to
treat the Apulians as an inconstantissima gens as well. Whatever his exact identity, he
was a cynical witness who detested the palace officials and abhorred the unrest that he
thought their misrule had created. Because Falcandus so lamented the turmoil that shook
the kingdom in the middle of the century, it is somewhat surprising that he did not
denounce the violent northern Italian settlers in Sicily as traitors too. In that regard, his
hatred for the eunuchs (and perhaps for Muslims in general) may explain why he sided
with the Lombardi, their bitter rivals. The possibility that Falcandus was a member of
those northern Italian communities should not be ruled out either. Regardless of his
motivation, this late twelfth-century chronicler clearly regarded the people of southern
Italy, the Longobardi, in much the same way as his predecessors: a treacherous and
militarily inept group who needed to be kept on a short leash.
This survey reveals important insights into the combined effects of stereotypes
and patronage on medieval historical narratives. In spite of the terminological shifts
reflected in the texts, a number of recurring concepts (or misconceptions) about the
"Lombards" do emerge from the texts. The likelihood that Alexander of Telese and Hugo
Falcandus made purely coincidental use of expressions so similar to those of earlier
writers {gens infida, nequitia, malitia) in fact seem quite low. It is also significant that,
while writers might have had access to a set of standard images about the people of
southern Italy, they would not have always found it politically wise to employ them. The
Lombards and their fall from power sometimes required careful handling, as William of
125
Apulia's situation indicates. Such was not the case for the Greeks, however, whom the
chroniclers were free to insult at great length.
126
CHAPTER IV
CONTEMPT FOR THE GRAECI
The Byzantine Empire controlled parts of southern Italy for more than five
centuries before the Normans brought an end to its rule there. The adjective "Byzantine"
is, however, a modern convention, and medieval sources tended refer to both subjects of
the empire and other Greek-speaking communities as Graeci.51 Examining how the
"Greeks" were perceived by these enemies of Constantinople can be highly instructive,
revealing Western antipathy toward non-Latin Christians prior to the twelfth century, a
time when relations between Byzantium and the West are thought to have broken down
in earnest.511 It should, furthermore, be noted that there was a prominent Greek-speaking
population in Sicily, which, although no longer part of the empire, was still thought to
510 Formy purposes, I use "Byzantine" to refer to subjects of the Byzantine Empire. I use "Greek"
to mean people with Byzantine origins or who were Greek-speaking.
11 Theologically, the Great Schism of 1054 is commonly thought to mark the beginning of the
decisive break between East and West, although the fallout from this watershed was not immediately felt.
Ostrogorski, History ofthe Byzantine State, 337. "The significance of this event was not realized until later,
and at the time little notice was taken of it. . . Misunderstandings between the two ecclesiastical centres
were all too common and no one was to guess that the quarrel of 1054 was of greater significance than
earlier disputes, or that it marked a schism which was never again to be healed." Runciman linked the
schism with the era of crusades in the twelfth century. In his view, growing hostility characterized such
events as the refusal of Emperor Manuel Comnenus to take part in the Second Crusade and his alliance
with the Seljuk sultan. Tensions culminated in the massacre of the Latins in Constantinople in 1182. Steven
Runciman, The Eastern Schism: AStudy ofthe Papacy and the Eastern Churches during the XIth and XIIth
Centuries (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955), 124-144. From a Constantinopolitan perspective, A. Kazhdan
believed that "Byzantine intellectuals began to consider the West as a unified entity" in the twelfth century.
Writing in this period, for instance, both John Kinnamos and Anna Comnena spoke of uniquely "Latin"
habits. A. Kazhdan, "Latins and Franks in Byzantium: Perception and Reality from the Eleventh to Twelfth
Century," in The Crusadesfrom the Perspective ofByzantium and the Muslim World, ed. Angeliki E. Laiou
and Roy P. Mottahedeh (Washington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2001), 86.
127
possess some connection to Byzantium.512 Examining this second group is equally
illuminating as it helps reveal the extent to which Sicilian"Greeks" were considered
similar to those of the empire.
What quickly becomes clear from surveying the texts is that, amongthese authors,
there was a profound degree of hostility felt toward this group. This antagonism was
directed not only toward the Byzantine Empire, but toward the Greeks as a whole,
regardless of whether they lived in Sicily or the eastern Mediterranean. The presence of
such "Grecophobia" is apparent in both eleventh- and twelfth-century sources,
demonstrating a persistent animosity running through the entire period under analysis.
Before delving into the particulars of these sentiments, however, it is necessary to begin
by looking at the ethnonyms the writers applied to this group.
Malaterra relied on the adjective Graecus to refer to both the Byzantine Greeks
and their Greek-speaking counterparts in Sicily. In his words, individual Greeks were
natione Graecus, their armies were exercitus Graecorum, their customs were mores
Graecorum, and their language was Graeca lingua.513 He also occasionally used Graecus
in a devotional context to distinguish between Greek Christians {Graeci Christiani) and
Latin Christians {Latini Christiani).514 As for their homeland, Malaterra identified it
512 Muslim control over all of Sicily was effective as of 902. Metcalfe, The Muslims ofMedieval
Italy, 31.
5,3 The expression "natione Graecus" appeared twice in Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, 1.6 and
11.45, 53. "Exercitus Graecorum" appeared in ibid., III.27, 74. "Mos Graecorum" was used with reference
to the Sacraments in ibid., IV. 13, 92. The phrase Graeca lingua is located in ibid., IV.2, 86.
514 Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, IV. 13. This episode involved a quarrel between the
Byzantine emperor and the pope over the use of leavened or unleavened bread. See also ibid., IV.22, in
which Roger Borsa tried to replace the local Greek bishop of Rossano with a "Latin," and met with
opposition from the "Greeks."
128
variously as Graecia, Sanctum Imperium, and Romania,5 5ruled by the imperator
Constantinopolitanum, while Constantinople itself was the regia urbs.51 Aside from his
acknowledgment of it as an empire, overseen by an imperator, there is little to indicate
that he held any esteem for Byzantium.
Because of William of Apulia's preference for classicizing terminology, he did
not confine himself to referring to the Greeks as just Graeci, like Malaterra. In addition to
this word, he called them Graeii, Danai, Argi, Pelasgi, Achivi, gens Argiva, gens Achaea,
C]H SIS
and gens Argolica. Most of these forms relate to the Trojan War. Furthermore, while
William did refer to the Byzantine Empire as Graecia, Romania, sanctum imperium, and
515 Graecia was mentioned in Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, 111.40, 81 and 111.41. The
Byzantine Empire was described as the sanctum imperium in ibid., 1.7, 10. It was labeled Romania in ibid.,
111.24, 74, 111.30, 75, and IV.24, 102.
Albu has pointed to William of Apulia's use of the phrase "Holy Empire" as evidence that the poet
was sympathetic to Byzantium and as an example of how his view of the Byzantines differed from
Malaterra's. Clearly, however, both made use of the phrase. Albu, The Normans in their Histories, 134.
"Byzantium is the Holy Empire (Imperium Sanctum)... by implication this monarch also surpasses lesser
princes, including kings (reges)." More recently, Toubert has reiterated this erroneous belief that "il est
indeniable que Guillaume de Pouille inscrit dans le filon de 1'historiographie sud-italienne du XF siecle sa
version la plus "byzantinisante". II est en ce sens le seul a nous parler de Byzance comme du sanctum
imperium par excellence." Toubert, "La premiere historiographie de la conquete normande de l'ltalie
mendionale (XIe siecle)," 25.
516 The Byzantine emperor was defined as imperator Constantinopolitanum inMalaterra, Derebus
gestis Rogerii, III.6, IV. 13, 92, and IV.22, 101. It is interesting to observe that Malaterra referred to the
pseudo-emperor who claimed to be Michael Ducas as "imperator Constantinopolitani" rather than
"imperator Constantinopolitanum." It is unclear whether this was deliberate. Ibid., III. 13, 64. Regia urbs
was utilized as a byword for Constantinople in ibid., 111.29. Emily Albu implied that Malaterra only
identified the ruler of the Holy Roman Empire as an imperator. In reality, this author treated both the
Byzantine and German sovereigns as imperatores. Cf. Albu, The Normans in their Histories, 134.
517 Graii appeared in William of Apulia, Gesta, III.75. Danai comes from Danaus, the legendary
founder of Argos, and was applied especially to the Greeks before the Trojan War. Lewis and Short, A New
Latin Dictionary, 511. Gens Argiva, Argi, and Argolica gens are all drawn from Argos, the capital of
Argolis, applied poetically to all of Greece. Ibid., 158. Gens Achaea and Achivi come from the province of
Achaia, on the Gulf of Corinth. Ibid., 22. Pelasgi comes from an old name for the Peloponnesus; the
Pelasgi were considered the oldest inhabitants of Greece. Ibid., 1325. The majority of these phrases can be
found in Vergil's Aeneid. Gens Achaea is not in the Aeneid but can be found inpassim in Livy's Ab Urbe
Condita, the Thebaid of Statius, and Pliny the Elder's Naturalis Historiae. Argolica gens is not in the
Aeneid, but is contained in the Thebaid. Gens Argiva can be found in Isidore's Etymologiae XIII.21. See
also Etymologiae, IX.2. "Danai a Danao rege vocati. Idem et Argivi, ab Argo conditore cognominati . . .
Achaei, qui et Achivi, ab Achaeo lovis filio dicti. Pelasgi nominati, quia cum velis passis verno tempore
advenisse Italiam visi sunt, ut aves. Primo enim eos Varro Italiam adpulisse commemorat."
1 Foran elaboration on William's classical language, see Mathieu, introduction to Gesta, 61-62.
129
even Imperium Romanum, he never referred to its ruler as an imperator. Instead, the
poet identified the ruler of the empire by the phrases imperii rector, Graecorum dominus,
or, even more ambiguously, qui regit imperium. It should be mentioned that William
never actually employed the word "emperor" at all, for German or Greek sovereigns. He
did not, however, mean this as a deliberate insult to these rulers, but did so rather because
the meter of the poem would not admit imperator.
The Old French translation of Amatus, on the other hand (which allows for only
an approximation of the original terms the author employed for the Byzantines), suggests
that the monk of Montecassino relied on language very similar to Malaterra's. The text
contains a variety of words equivalent to the Latin Graecus: Grex, Grez, Grec, Greg, and
Grezois. The emperor appeared as empereor, empereour, and empereor de Costebtinoble,
presiding over the Impiere de Costantinoble. Amatus, in a sign of contempt, referred to

coo
their language not as "Greek," but as a barbarous tongue, or lengue barbare.
Although Alexander of Telese made no mention of the Greeks, Hugo Falcandus
did, calling them simply Greci. Most of the time, the author was discussing indigenous
Greeks of Sicily and rather than the Byzantines, and as a result typically juxtaposed them
against the Latini, Longobardi, and Transalpini. Despite the fact that Falcandus made no
519 Graecia appeared in William of Apulia, Gesta, IV.434. Romania is located in ibid., III.9, and
III.99. It was referred to as imperium sanctum in ibid., 1.477,1.515,11.487, IV.87. William called it the
Imperium Romanum in ibid., III. 1-2 and IV.568. Elsewhere, the poet identified the Byzantine empire as
Danaorum terra (ibid., 111.661), fines Graecorum (ibid., IV. 122), or simply imperium (passim).
20 Imperii rector Irector imperii were in William of Apulia, Gesta, 11.38, III.661-2, IV.568, V.35.
Graecorum dominus appeared in ibid., III.52. Other phrases used for the emperor included "sedi imperiali
praesidet" (ibid., 1.196-197) and "regebat imperii" (ibid., III. 1-2). Qui regit imperium can be found in
ibid., 11.59; in ibid., 11.14-15 is a similar phrase, "qui tempore iura regebat imperii." Contrary to Pierre
Toubert's observation, William never utilized the expression qui iura geret imperii. Toubert, "La premiere
historiographie de la conquete normande de l'ltalie meridionale (XIe siecle)," 30.
521 Albu, The Normans in their Histories, 134n.
!2 The Byzantine Empire was called the "Empire of Constantinople" in Amatus of Montecassino,
Storia, VII.27, 318. The other expressions occurred in passim.
130
reference to their spoken language, he briefly mentioned one court official as "Grecis
litteris eruditus."524 Finally, while the empire itself never appeared in the narrative, the
emperor was referred to as the imperator Greeorum.
Stereotypes of the Byzantines
In the eleventh-century sources, fear and military ineptitude were the most
recurring negative attributes applied to the Greeks. Altogether, they became frightened or
fled from battle eight times in the text of Malaterra, thirteen times in the text of William,
and five times in the text of Amatus.526 Indeed, the chroniclers consistently depicted the
Byzantines as weak and effeminate, thereby putting them in diametrical opposition to the
strong and virile Normans. William of Apulia recorded that Arduin, a Lombard soldier
who fought with the Norman mercenaries during the Byzantine expedition to Sicily,
compared the Greeks to women {quasifemina Graecus), calling them "a cowardly sort
{genus ignavum)" "lost in drunken inebriation {ebrietatis crapula dissolvat)." Arduin
added that they "frequently fled before the least of enemies {minimo saepe hoste
fugatos)" and, "weighed down by their dress," were "unsuited for fighting {non armis

526
Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, 1.9; 1.10; 11.29; 11.44; 11.45; 111.25; 111.27; 111.40. William of
Apulia, Gesta, 1.14-34; 1.77-78; 1.192-194; 1.222-228; 1.281-285; 1.351-354; 1.524-526; 1.543^136;
1.562-563; V.61-67; V.179-183; V.197-198. Amatus of Montecassino, Storia, 1.21; 11.21; 11.23; 11.26;
V.27.
527 William of Apulia, Gesta, 1.212. "Cum sit quasi femina Graecus." Ibid., 1.224-227. "Appula
multimodae cum terra sit utilitatis, / Femineis Graecis cur permittatur haberi, / Cum genus ignavum sit,
quod comes ebrietatis / Crapula dissolvat." Arduin was a soldier from Milan who served the Byzantines
during their war in Sicily. For more information on the historical figure see F. Chalandon, Histoire de la
domination normande en Italie et en Sicilie (Paris: Picard, 1907), 91; Mathieu, Commentaire to Gesta, 268.
131
aptos)." Amatus evidently shared William's view, repeating Arduin's insult about
Byzantines being "feminine men {homesfeminines)."
This commentary did not always come from characters who were enemies of
Constantinople, either. William of Apulia had one Byzantine general vainly remind his
troops that their "manly condition {virili condicione)" should prevent them from
possessing "womanly hearts {cor muliebre)."530 Although Malaterra did not explicitly
question Greek masculinity in quite the same way, he did refer to them as timid {timidus)
and weak {imbecillis), and noted that they dressed unusually, or mirifice. He wrote,
moreover, that they were "a people by custom dedicated to delights and pleasures rather
than to the arts of war {gens, deliciis at voluptatibus, potiusquam belli studiis ex more
dedita)".532 Whereas the renowned opulence of Constantinople undoubtedly explains the
prevalent notion of Greek lasciviousness, their loss of southern Italy to the Normans (and
528 William of Apulia, Gesta, 1.227-228. "Minimo saepe hoste fugatos / Vestituque graves, non
armis asserit aptos." Distaste for Byzantine dress can be found in the writings of Liutprand of Cremona as
well. E.g. Antapodosis, 111.23; Relatio de legatione Constantinopolitana adNicephorum Phocam, 1.9,1.37,
1.40.
29 Amatus of Montecassino, Storia, 11.17. "Venez aprez moi, etje irai devant et vouz aprez. Et
vouz dirai pourquoi je voiz devant: que sachiez que je vouz menerai a homes feminines, c'est a homes
comme fames, liquel demorent en molt ricche et espaciouse terre." Amatus also mentioned that when the
Normans began fighting the Byzantines they learned that they were "like women (commefames)". Ibid.,
1.21. In addition, Amatus noted the unusual appearance of the Byzantines, observing that someone
returning from Constantinople could inspire wonder. Ibid., IV.39, 211. "Se merveilla que vint o grant
barbe, comme s'il fust de Costentinoble."
30 William of Apulia, Gesta, 1.351-354. "Prudentia vestra virili / Condicione vigens, non vos
permittat habere / Cor muliebre, viri."
531 Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, 111.24, 71. Here Robert Guiscard referred to the Greeks as
imbecillis in a battle oration during his campaigns in Greece. "Non vos deterreat ignobilis vulgi et
imbecillis, quamvis numerosae, multitudinis strepitus hostium." Malaterra employed the term timidus for
the Greeks on two occasions. He portrayed the bishop of Palermo as "timidus et natione graecus" in ibid.,
11.45, 53; he described the siege of Durazzo in verse, writing "Sed plus atteritur asperitatibus / Graecorum
populus territus hostibus, / Nee reddit aspera vulnera: / Vires abstulerat timor." Ibid., 111.25. Malaterra
called a Norman returning from Constantinople "mirifice graeco more praeparatum" in ibid., 11.53, 51. The
author also wrote that, in the one instance when Greek soldiers were fighting, it was against their custom,
or contra usum in ibid., 1.10.
32 Malaterra, Derebus gestis Rogerii, III. 11, 64. This view of Byzantine hedonism would appear
to be further confirmed by William of Apulia's assessment of the reigns of Michael VII and his brother
Constantine, which was "destructive (perniciosa)" for the Greeks because they neglected war, led a life of
luxury, and allowed the Turks to invade the eastern part of the empire. William of Apulia, Gesta, III. 1-6.
132
before that, of Sicily to the Muslims) might best explain this commonly held belief in
their delicate timidity.
The chroniclers made Greek weakness particularly apparent in their descriptions
of a series of military engagements fought with the Normans over the course of the year
1041. At the battle of Olivento, Malaterra and William reported that the majority of the
Byzantine troops died in their panic-stricken retreat across the river there, preferring to
drown rather than fight, and Amatus wrote that their bodies overflowed the riverbanks.
At Ofanto, according to the poet, the Byzantine commander almost plunged his horse into
a nearby river in his haste to escape at the same time that his soldiers fled the field.
Amatus, always one to look for the divine presence, added that God miraculously raised
the water level during this engagement so that more of the Greeks died through drowning
than through combat.535 Water, an element responsible for both life and death, played an
important part in all these accounts, functioning as more than just an ancillary geographic
detail. The authors appear to have been indicating that the very land of Italy itself was
struggling to cast off Byzantine domination, which was no longer part of the natural
order. For them, Greek rule in Italy was, simply put, unnatural.
Defeat followed defeat, and at a third battle, fought at Monteloso, the Byzantines
were again routed. Their general was killed by Robert Guiscard, according to Malaterra,
533 This was fought on 17March, 1041, along the Olivento, a tributary of the larger Ofanto.
Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, 1.9; William of Apulia, Gesta, 1.254-289; Amatus of Montecassino,
Storia, 11.21. Although Malaterra reported that initially, both sides fought acerrime, the situation soon
turned against the Greeks.
536 William was no doubt alluding to the Greeks' earlier water-related difficulties when, at the
conclusion of his first book, he wrote that a raging river could not inspire more fear in the Byzantines than
a Norman general. William of Apulia, Gesta, 1.545-546.
133
"like an ox," the classic sacrificial victim. William of Apulia gave this same
unfortunate commander a lengthy pre-battle speech in which he exhorted his troops to
"remember the courage {virtus) of your ancestors," then listed the achievements of the
ancient Greeks, from Achilles to Alexander.538 As others have noted, these classical
exempla only underscored the advanced state of decay that Greece's medieval
descendants now found themselves in.539 Exasperated, the general finally asked his men,
"what cowardice makes you always flee?"540 In Amatus's version, when combat began
"the Greeks did not stop running," and he attributed their loss to the fact that they had
previously "put more faith in themselves than in God."541 After this defeat, Malaterra
wrote that the Greeks hid behind their walls, refusing to fight the Normans in the open
again,542 while William compared the Normans to a hawk that had learned it could handle
larger prey.543 The underlying message was that the Byzantines might appear threatening,
but, in reality, they could be overcome with ease because of their innate cowardice.
The Greeks met further disgrace during Robert Guiscard's invasion of the
Byzantine Empire, which culminated at the battle for the port city of Durazzo in 1081.
In this confrontation, only Byzantium's allies, the Venetians, proved their bravery,
whereas on land the Graecorum populus, hiding behind their walls, were "exhausted by
537 Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, 1.10, 13. "Quasi bove interfecto." Commenting on this,
Luigi Andrea Berto has pointed out the symbolism of the ox here as "an animal with no masculinity,
capable only of servile deeds and good only as meat at the butcher's." Berto, "'Non audaces sed fugaces,'
17.
539 Wolf, Making History, 129-130; Berto, '"Non audaces sed fugaces,'" 12.
544 Thebattle of Durazzo was fought in October 1081 between the Byzantines, Venetians, and
Normans for control of the Straits of Otranto, for which see F. Chalandon, Essai sur le regne d'Alexisfr
Comnene: (1081-1118), 78-81; Ostrogorski, History ofthe Byzantine State, 357-359. On Venice's role
during this event, see Lane, Venice: A Maritime Republic, 28-29.
134
adversity {atteritur asperitatibus)" and "terrified by the enemy {territus hospitibus)."
Worse yet, the Byzantine army under the command of Alexius I Comnenus (1081-1118),
who had hurried to relieve the beleaguered city, was subsequently routed.54 As both
Malaterra and William of Apulia stressed, this catastrophic imperial defeat occurred in
spite of the Greek army's significantly superior numbers.
Malaterra, acknowledging that this exercitus Graecorum was a multitudo
comprised of multa millia, observed nevertheless that it added up to little since "fear had
stolen strength {vires abstulerat timor)."541 Though the emperor arrived at Durazzo with a
force so large that it could not be fully viewed even from a mountaintop, he became
territus in battle and "chose flight over fight (fugam, potius quam certamen, eligit)."
Following his lead, the Graeci abandoned their tents and goods, "each hurrying to get
ahead inthe rout (fuga)."549 With the defeat of "such a populous empire, and such a
wealthy emperor, and so many thousands of enemies," "fear {timor) caused the entire
empire to tremble."55
If Malaterra emphasized Greek numbers, William took this even further, making
Robert Guiscard's victory all the more shocking—and the emperor's loss all the more
shameful. He wrote of the Byzantine force as multi Argi, maxima barbaricae cum
Graecis, gens innumerabilis, and agmina plura, with innumerae catervae that covered
the hills and fields "like locusts {more locustarum)."551 William added further irony to
Durazzo by discussing how Alexius initially rejoiced at the chance for battle and by
Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, III.25.

546 On this emperor's reign, which spanned nearly forty years, see Ostrogorski, History ofthe
550 Malaterra, Derebus gestis Rogerii, 111.29. Ibid., 111.24.
551 William of Apulia, Gesta, IV.227, 323, 357, 372, 407, 363.
135
noting that, when the fighting at first went well for them, the Byzantine soldiers began to
loot the battlefield.552 This confidence was premature, however, and though the situation
seemed grim for Robert Guiscard, the duke rallied his followers and shattered the morale
ofthe Greeks, killing five thousand ofthem.553 Alexius, for his part, could only retreat,
wounded, weeping, and disgraced: saucius, lacrimans, and inglorius. The Greeks'
corpses lay unburied and rotting, and the duke's troops soon moved on because of the
stench of decay.555 The humiliating outcome of the battle could not have been made more
apparent, and William's vivid use of olfactory descriptors for the Byzantines seemsto
have been a way for him to drive home the bitter acrimony he felt for these enemies of
his hero, Robert Guiscard.55
At a more implicit level, Greek cowardice was further demonstrated through their
constant reliance on foreign mercenaries.557 Alexius I employed Turkish soldiers against
both domestic and foreign enemies, and even turned them loose on Constantinople,
allowing them to violate the city's holy places.558 The Venetians were induced to support
the Byzantines at Durazzo, and the Varangian guard (a northern European section of the
552 William of Apulia, Gesta, IV.229, 392.

553 William of Apulia, Gesta, IV.413—415. The humiliation actually started shortly before the
battle, when, a little earlier, one of the Byzantine leaders was captured trying to escape (capiturfugiens).
Ibid., IV.339.
554 William of Apulia, Gesta, IV.420^25. "Lacrimatur Alexius, hostem / Praevaluisse sibi, cui
nee par copia gentis, / Nee par census erat; discedit saucius ipse, / Cogitur et lacrimans inglorius ille reverti,
/ Gloria cui fuerat frustra sperata triumphi."
555 William of Apulia, Gesta, IV.434^37.
556 For commentary on this, see Berto, '"Non audaces sed fugaces,'" 13.
557 In William of Apulia's poem, theymade unscrupulous use of such soldiers, utilizing both
heretics and barbarians. William of Apulia, Gesta, 1.334-339. "Cum Graecis aderant quidam, quos
pessimus error / Fecerat amentes, et ab ipso nomen habebant: / Plebs solet ista Patrem cum Christo dicere
passum, / Et fronti digito signum crucis imprimit uno; / Non aliam Nati personam quam Patris esse, / Hanc
etiam Sancti Spiraminis esse docebant." The poet was referring to Armenian soldiers in the Byzantine
army, among whom were Paulicians, a group he regarded as heretical. For elaboration, see Mathieu,
Commentaire to Gesta, 271.
558 William of Apulia in fact reported the Turks as present at Alexius I Comnenus's capture of
Constantinople, the battle of Durazzo, and the siege of Larissa, William of Apulia, Gesta, IV. 150-153,
331-332; V.70.
136
imperial army) was present there as well.559 During the Byzantine campaign in Sicily, the
empire hired Lombards and Normans, who ultimately did most of the fighting. This
policy, of course, always failed the Greeks. They alienated their Norman and Italian
troops by denyingthem the spoils of war; the Varangians and Turks were killed or fled
from combat; the Venetians went so far as to betray the emperor, handing over Durazzo
to Robert Guiscard.561 The message, although not overtly stated by any chronicler, was
that the Byzantines required others to fight for them since they themselves were
incapable warriors. Such a stratagem would never succeed, because gold could not buy
courage.
Cruelty was typically attributed to the Greeks as well. For example, William
described how Arduin the Lombard suffered "shameful tortures {dedecores cruciatus),"
explicitly defined as Greek rituals {ritus Graecorum), after speaking out against a
559 For the Venetians, see William of Apulia, Gesta, IV.277-29, and IV.437-501. Malaterra, De
rebus gestis Rogerii, 111.26 and 111.28. For the Varangians, see ibid., 111.27, 75 and 111.29; Amatus of
Montecassino, Storia, 11.24 and 11.26.
560 William of Apulia stated that the Byzantine expedition wasmade up of soldiers summoned
from undique and included plebs Lambardorum Gallis admixta. William of Apulia, Gesta, 1.196-205.
These soldiers were inspired to desert by the avaritia of the Greeks. Ibid., 1.211. Malaterra wrote that the
Byzantines persuaded the prince of Salerno to support their cause in Sicily by promising rewards, and so he
sent them his Norman knights. The Normans distinguished themselves in Sicily, while the Greeks arrived
late to battle and seized the loot. Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, 1.7. The Lombard presence was
therefore downplayed in Malaterra's version, since Arduin was the only "Italus" mentioned as taking part
in the expedition. Ibid., 1.8. Amatus reported that the Apulians and Calabrians were induced to take part in
the Sicilian campaign by the deniers de li Impereor. Amatus of Montecassino, Storia, II.8, 66. The prince
of Salerno sent three hundred Normans to Sicily, who outshined "la moltitude de li Grex." Ibid., 11.8,67.
Later, at Melfi, Amatus wrote that the Normans killed the Varangians, Apulians, Calabrians, and "tuit cil
qui pour or et pour argent estoient venut a lo peril de la bataille." Ibid., 11.26, 90.
561 For quarrels overthe division of lootbetween Normans, Lombards, and Byzantines in Sicily,
see Amatus of Montecassino, Storia, 11.14, 17; Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, 1.8, 12; William of
Apulia, Gesta, I. 213-218. For the retreats and defeats of the Varangians, see Amatus of Montecassino,
Storia, 11.26, 90; Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, 111.27, 75 and 111.29. For the retreat of the Turks just
before the battle of Durazzo and then later at the siege of Larissa, see William of Apulia, Gesta, IV.337-
338 and V.70. On the betrayal of the Venetian garrison at Durazzo, see Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii,
111.28; William of Apulia, Gesta, IV.494-501.
137
Byzantine commander's unfair division of the spoils of war. Likewise, Amatus
reported that Arduin was stripped and beaten "accordingto the wicked custom of the
Greeks {secont lapessime costumance de li Grex)" because he refused to give up a horse
he had captured in battle.563 In some other examples of Byzantine injustice from Amatus,
an innocent man was drowned at the command of the emperor564 and complaints were
made about "la grevance" suffered from Greek lordship and 'Tinjure" that the Greeks did
to Lombard women.565 Malaterra too recorded that the Byzantines had Arduin shamefully
beaten for questioning the Greeks' division ofthe loot in Sicily,566 and added that,
although the commander had promised his Norman and Lombard soldiers rewards for
their valiant efforts, he never intended to repay them, and in fact mocked them
{subsannare) when around his own men.
For the poet, however, all this was merely a prelude to the great wave of atrocities
carried out under General George Maniakes, the catapan of Italy.568 William introduced
him as a man "full of iniquity {nequitia plenus)," "arrogant-minded {mente superbus),"
and "overflowing with awful savagery {diraferitate redundans)." Maniakes was a
"tyrant {tirannus)," who killed many people—hanging some, beheading others, and even
562 William of Apulia, Gesta, I. 213-218. "Iratus Michael propter convicia iussit / Graecorum ritu
caedendus ut exueretur, / Corrigiis caesum graviter peccasse puderet. Dedecoris tanti cruciatibus exagitatus,
/ Mulctae commissum non dimissurus inultum, / Clam cum gente sua Graecorum castra reliquit."
563 Amatus of Montecassino, Storia, 11.14, 17. "Et, secont la pessime costumance de li Grex, fu
batut tout nu, et li cheval fu leve\ Et ensi ot vergoingne en son cors, pur ce qu'il non voloit donner lo cheval
de sa volonte."
564 Amatus of Montecassino,Storia, 1.26.
568 After successful campaigning in Sicily and southern Italy, George Maniakes was eventually
deprived of his post by Emperor Constantine IX Monomachus. He allowed his soldiers to proclaim him
emperor, then crossed over to Durazzo and waged war against the empire. He was ultimately killed in battle
in 1043. For historical commentary on Maniakes, see Ostrogorski, History ofthe Byzantine State, 332-333.
569 William of Apulia, Gesta, 1.441^145.
138
burying children alive.570 With "his mind raging (furibunda mente)," he at one point
killed two hundred farmers in a single day; neither old nor young, monk nor priest, was
spared by this "iniquus."571 Carried away by his "anger and rage {odiis et ira)" Maniakes
later became a "traitor (perfidus)," rising up against the emperor.572 He captured an
imperial ambassador who came bearing gifts, tortured him, then had this wretched victim
killed by filling his mouth with horse manure (another sensory metaphor from
William).573 Full of "great fury (furor gravus)" at his base in Taranto, he sent his troops
on savage foraging expeditions to pillage the surrounding area.5 Maniakes eventually

crossed the sea to claim the imperial throne, but not before burning "certain witches"
whom he believed were stirring up the waves.575 His endeavors came to naught, however,
and the poet wrote that, having been killed in battle in Greece, the "scelerus" paid for his
crimes.576 William of Apulia's repeated use of words that connote not only anger, but a
particularly animalistic kind of madness, greatly underscored the brutality of Byzantine
rule.577
All of these sentiments about the tyrannical "Byzantine yoke" were meant to help
legitimize the Norman takeover by stressing the horrible oppression of their predecessors.

571 William of Apulia, Gesta, 1.457^60. Mathieu suggested thatthe phrasefuribunda mente was a
play on words based on the name surname Maniakes. Mathieu, Commentaire to Gesta, 274.
573 William of Apulia, Gesta, 1.486-490. Luigi Andrea Berto has interpreted this reference to foul
smelling dung as evidence of the poet's acrimony toward the Byzantines. Berto, '"Non audaces sed
fugaces,'" 13.
575 William of Apulia, Gesta, 1.568-570. "Ut pacificato / Aequore transiret, quasdam, quas
aequora credit / Perturbasse magas, cruciat, succendit et igni."
577 Thus it seems quite inappropriate to speak of "William's Byzantine sympathies," as Emily
Albu has, or to argue that "William of Apulia has absorbed the Byzantine spirit of late eleventh-century
Apulia, where the empire had lately been investing considerable attention." Albu, The Normans in their
Histories, 135. The poet was obviously well aware of imperial involvement in southern Italy, but his
"Byzantine spirit," from these depictions, appears rather lacking.
139
Whether the Byzantines truly abused their subjects in Italy to such an extent as the
chroniclers suggested is perhaps less significant than the fact that they chose to depict
them this way. To a degree, however, the recurring condemnation of Greek governors
and Greek justice might stem from an actual administrative difference between areas
under an efficient imperial military occupation and those zones outside Constantinople's
control578 If there is any shred of truth to what the chroniclers reported, it was perhaps not
so much that the Byzantines were more cruel than their rivals in southern Italy, but that
they were more capable of meting out justice. It is therefore little wonder that one of their
most successful commanders, George Maniakes, was so thoroughly demonized.
The Greeks were no kinder to their own people, and further cruelty in
Constantinople itself ultimately provided Robert Guiscard with the pretext for his
invasion of the Byzantine Empire. Having arranged his daughter's marriage into the
imperial family, the duke's intended son-in-law, Constantine Ducas, was, according to
Malaterra, "disgracefully castrated {turpiter eunuchizatus)" by usurpers. Robert's own
daughter was meanwhile placed under guard in the capital. The fact that Constantine
was not only ousted, but literally emasculated, was probably intended to elicit particular
578 Inthis regard, see G. A. Loud's observations in The New Cambridge Medieval History.
Although his comments concern an earlier period, they may prove just as valid for the mid-eleventh
century. Loud, "Southern Italy in the Tenth Century," in The New Cambridge Medieval History, vol. 3,
634. "While the Latin chroniclers tend to ascribe instances of disaffection in the Byzantine provinces to the
demands or the cruelty of particular governors, one might well conclude that it was rather the reaction of
the populace to a governmental system which was far more efficient, and thus by definition more
oppressive, than that in the Lombard principalities."
79 Malaterra, Derebus gestis Rogerii, III. 13, 64. Constantine Ducas, son of Michael VII Ducas
and Maria of Alania, was born ca. 1074 and betrothed to Robert Guiscard's daughter, Helena. He died
some time in the 1090s. John H. Rosser, Historical Dictionary ofByzantium (Lanham: Scarecrow Press,
2001), 125.
140
shock from the author's Norman audience, who, prizing virility, would have seen
CO 1
eunuchs as truly alien, and would have considered castration a fate worse than death.
Meanwhile, Constantine's father, Emperor Michael VII Ducas (1071-78), had
been deposed and "violently (yiolenter)" forced to become a monk through the betrayal
of his own followers (fraude suorum).5n William of Apulia implied that he got what he
deserved, though, since his "awful will {dira voluntas)" had undeservedly "raged" against
his predecessor, the "innocent {insons)" Emperor Romanus.583 Reveling in the details of
intrigue in Constantinople, both Malaterra and William thereby emphasized the brutal
ratiocination that took place in the imperial capital, a place where sedition was always
present.
Regardless of what Michael had done to merit his overthrow, however, the poet
acknowledged the coup as a grave affront, or gravis iniuria, to Robert Guiscard. So
when a charlatan claiming to be the deposed emperor arrived in southern Italy, the duke
coc
championed his cause, knowing all along that the man was a fraud. William of Apulia
called this pseudo-Michael a quidam seductor who "lied about himself {mentitus se),"
and Malaterra noted that this Graecus looked nothing like the former emperor. The
empire, in the eyes of both chroniclers, appears to have been a place of continual, bloody
581 Berto has observed that the use ofthe adverb turpiter was "probably influenced by the horror
that this punishment provoked among the Normans for whom war and virility had a fundamental
importance." Berto, '"Non audaces sed fugaces,'" 20.
82 Malaterra, Derebus gestis Rogerii, III. 13, 64. Michael VII Ducas was son of Constantine X
and Eudokia Makrembolitissa. He took power after the battle of Manzikert. Rosser, Historical Dictionary
ofByzantium, 273.
583 William, Gesta, IV.1-3. "Michael. . . Cuius in insontem Romanum dira voluntas / Arserat
indigne." That is, Emperor Romanus IV Diogenes, who ruled from 1068 until shortly after his defeat at
Manzikert in August 1071. Runciman, A History ofthe Crusades, 63-65.
586 William of Apulia, Gesta, IV.162-165. Malaterra, Derebus gestis Rogerii, III.13, 65.
141
COT
intrigue, and a font of lies and deception, where people were rarely what they seemed.
The fact that Robert Guiscard beat the Byzantines at their own game, choosing to make
use of an imperial impostor to his own advantage, was thus a fitting testament to his
cleverness.5 8
Treachery was readily apparent in other episodes concerning the Byzantines too.
Amatus wrote that the Greeks had a habit of always combating their enemies "par
maliciouz argument et o subtil tradement."589 He noted that the "Grex" bribed the Turks
to betray and capture their partner, the Norman mercenary Roussel de Bailleul, and later
suggested that a Greek official had caused a revolt among Norman lords in Apulia by
paying them a large sum of gold.590 William of Apulia described Emperor Nicephorus
Botaneiates (1078-1081), perhaps the archetypal Byzantine, as "inept in war, yet wise,
with an ingenious mind; on guard against secret dangers, unwarlike, and considered
fearful rather than to be feared {ignavus bello, tamen ingeniosa / Mente sagax; contra
furtivapericula cautus, I Imbellis, metuensplus quam metuendus habetur)." His
successor, Alexius I Comnenus, overcame his enemies at least partly through cunning
{ars). For William, the Greeks employed crafty promises {callida promissio), and were
like snakes that hid beneath the earth, unable to defeat the Normans "through either
87 Commentary on the violent competition for the imperial throne was not confined to Malaterra
and William. In a similar way, Amatus reported that a Byzantine commander was "crudelement taillte" in
Constantinople. Amatus of Montecassino, Storia, 11.15.
88 Unlike Geoffrey Malaterra, however, William ofApulia went on to reveal that the impostor
failed to impress the inhabitants of Durazzo, who mocked the charlatan from their walls. William of
Apulia, Gesta, IV.265-271. This episode was almost certainly intended to indicate the insolence of the
Greeks rather than highlight the naivete of Robert Guiscard, whom both William and Malaterra assured
their readers was well aware that the pseudo-Michael was a fraud. Emily Albu's observations that the
writers were trying to reveal the duke's "blunders" or were trying to stress that this was "a humiliating
moment" for him are therefore without justification. Cf. Albu, The Normans in their Histories, 130-136.
590 Amatus of Montecassino, Storia, 1.15 and V.4.
592 William of Apulia, Gesta, IV. 120-121,
142
treachery or arms {velfraude, vel armis).593 For Malaterra, however, treachery among the
Greeks, whom he labeled "always most perfidious," was most apparent among the Greek
inhabitants of Sicily.594
The "Greeks" of Sicily
After the completion of the Muslim conquest of Sicily in the tenth century, a
minority Greek-speaking Christian population remained on the island.595 Amatus of

Montecassino referred to this group only as Christien, never Greeks, and for him they
were victims of the Muslims par excellence. It was on their behalf, or so he wrote, that
Robert Guiscard and his brother were moved to wage their war in Sicily. The Saracens
were killing these Christians and forcing them into servitude, which was an insult to
God.596 In reality, the island's non-Muslim natives led a tenuous existence, which was, if
anything, made all the more precarious by the arrival of the Normans.
Indeed, Malaterra described a rapid decline in relations between the Sicilian
Greeks and the Normans. The initial encounters between the two groups were happy
ones, though—the author mentioned the Greeks meeting their co-religionists joyfully,
utilizing the phrases "maxima laetitia occurrentes" and "gavisi occurrerunt" and reporting
Callida Graecorum promissio was used by the poet in William of Apulia, Gesta, 11.61 to refer
to the emperor's promise to pay the Normans to leave Italy and come fight the Turks, an offer they rejected.
The snake metaphor was employed in ibid., 1.547-549. In ibid., 11.269, the poet wrote that both arms and
trickery had failed the Greeks.
Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, 11.29, 40. "Graeci vero, semper genus perfidissimum."
For background on the Greek-speaking inhabitants of Sicily, who were confined mainly to the
Val Demone of the northeastern part of the island, see Andr6 Guillou, "Inchiesta sulla popolazione greca
della Sicilia e della Calabria nei Medio Evo," in Studies on ByzantineItaly, ed. Andre Guillou (London:
Variorum, 1970), 53-68.
Amatus of Montecassino, Storia, V.7; ibid., V.12. These comments are discussed more
thoroughly in chapter two.
143
that Count Roger was "cum gaudio susceptus." Yet behind these festive scenes were
signs of a gathering storm: the Greek Christians refused absolutely to join forces with the
Normans and instead offered an excuse {excusatio), claiming that they did not serve the
Saracens because they liked them {causa amoris), but to protect themselves {ut seipsos
tuerentur). For that reason, they would not act disloyally against their Muslim
masters.599 As with the Byzantines, therefore, courage was not an aspect ofthe identity of
Sicily's Greek inhabitants.
Excuses aside, Malaterra eventually revealed that the Christian Sicilians were
willing to go so far as to enter into an alliance with the Saracens against the Normans.
The first real indication that trouble was brewing surfaced when the author noted that, on
a later visit to the town of Troina, a Christian stronghold in Sicily, Count Roger was
received "with not as much eagerness as previously {non cum tanta, utprius, tamen
alacritate suscipitur)." ° This time, Roger left behind a garrison after his departure, and
the Graeci became "offended only by this: that the count's knights were hosted in their
homes" and they, as a result, began to fear for their wives and daughters.601 They then
decided to drive the soldiers from the city, either through expulsion or murder
{expellendo vel certe occidendo).602 Now it was the Muslims' turn to be "pleased
{gavisi)," as they brought several thousand troops to help the Greeks in their struggle
597 Malaterra, Derebus gestis Rogerii, II. 14; II. 18.

Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, 11.14. "Hanc excusationem contra Sarracenos assumentes,
quod, non causa amoris, sed ut seipsos et quae sua erant tuerentur, hoc facerent, fidelitatem vero suam iHis
inviolabilem se servaturos."
Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, 11.29, 40. "Graeci vero, semper genus perfidissimum, hoc
solo offensi, quod milites comitis in dominibus suis ubi hospitabantur, de uxoribus et filiabus timentes,
quadam die, cum comes apud Nicosinum, oppugnandi gratia, moraretur, videntes paucos cum comitissa
remansisse, suspicati se in eosdem facile praevalere, ut eos ab urbe, expellendo vel certe occidendo,jugum
eorum a suo excutiant collo, oppugnare coeperunt."
144
against "our forces {nostri)."603 Malaterra indicated it was only the coldness ofthe winter
(which induced the Greeks to drink wine and lower their guard) that enabled the Normans
to overcome them in the night.604 With the Greek rebels killed or captured, the Saracens
(here identified only as adventicii, or outsiders) took flight.
The most fascinating aspect of Malaterra's narration is that, as the Christian
Sicilians turned against the Normans, they changed from being Christianito Graeci.
Before the uprising at Troina, they appeared almost indistinguishable from Roger's
forces, as both were identified solely as Christiani. Only later, when they met the count
less eagerly than before, were they Christiani Graeci—the first time that Malaterra gave
any indication that these were not Latin Christians.606 Finally, when peaceful coexistence
failed and fighting began, they had become simply Graeci. In that way, the author
seems to have been implying that such a trick {dolus) was not the behavior of Christians,
but of Greeks, whom he identified as "genus semper perfidissimum." Welcoming
friends were Christiani, traitors were Graeci.
It is equally significant that Malaterra did not explicitly fault the Graeci for
joining forces with the Saracens. While he commented on the treachery of their uprising
as "most perfidious," he found nothing to say about the fact that they had cooperated with
the Muslims. The reason for this is obvious: Malaterra was well aware of his patron's
own alliances with non-Christians, and would not have viewed such practical
603 Malaterra, Derebus gestis Rogerii, 11.29, 40. "Sarraceni denique, de vicinis castris quinque
millia a nobis promptiores, audientes Graecos a nostris dissentire, non minimum gavisi, auxilium laturi, se
jam ad illos contulerant: quorum praesidio Graeci se perplurimum tuebantur."
604 Malaterra, Derebus gestis Rogerii, 11.30, 41. William of Apulia noted a Byzantine army
becoming sluggish from excess wine as well. William of Apulia, Gesta, IV. 115
145
relationships as in any way illicit. Indeed, he could not, since to find fault with the Greek
rebels for cooperating with the Saracens was to find fault, by extension, with Count
Roger for doing exactly the same. The real issue for Malaterra appears then to have been
that Sicily's native Christians had, through their rebellious behavior, proven theirperfidia
(a word he never applied to Muslims).
Turning to the late twelfth century, one finds that Hugo Falcandus attributed
perfidy to the Greeks ofSicily as well.610 Specifically, he wrote that the fidelity (fides) of
the people of Messina, which boasted one of the largest Greek-speaking populations on
the island, wavered {vacillare) with Grecaperfidia and levitatepiratica. The Franks
called the Greeks proditores, and, while the latter claimed to befidelissimi semper, their
repeated uprisings proved otherwise.612 According to Falcandus, the Greeks looked atthe
Franks as predones alienigenas, foreign robbers, because of the taxes they imposed, and
they criticized their own temeritas and ignavia for allowing the wealth of the kingdom to
be shipped to Francia.613 They came to resent these exactions, andfalsae rumores
609 Nor was this the only uprising among the Greeks of Sicily thatMalaterra described. He wrote
that the citizens of Geraci rose up "because every type of our people was hated by them (quia omne genus
nostrae gentis illis invisum erat)." When Roger brought his army to Geraci, they lost faith in their "foolish
behavior (stultum propositum)" and the count was reconciled to these Graeci. Malaterra, De rebus gestis
Rogerii, III.31. This is not to be confused with Gerace, a city in Calabria that also rebelled, for which see
chapter three.
610 Andre" Guillou noted an active Greek presence in the areaaround Messina into the twelfth
century. Guillou, "Inchiesta sulla popolazione greca," 56. "La regione di Messina e quella che 6 compresa
fra Rometta e il mare, ospitavano nell' XI e XII secolo una popolazione greca attiva, che manteneva
costanti rapporti con i correligionari della Calabria." See also Houben, Roger II ofSicily: A Ruler between
East and West, 13. "It was only in the northeast, the Val Demone, including Messina, that Christian—
Greek orthodox—communities had been preserved."
611 Falcandus, Liber, c. 53, 132. "Verum exitus rei fidem eorum ostendit tarn greca perfidia quam
levitate piratica vacillare."
612 Falcandus, Liber, c. 53, 132. "Solos Messanenses, qui regi fidelissimi semper extiterint, haberi
ludibirio et eorum voces in curia non audiri." Ibid., c. 53, 133. "Nuper enim ad eum de Francia
Normanniaque clientuli multi confluxerant, qui, ut eorum mos est, in contumeliosa verba precipites et curie
patrocinio licentius abutentes, Grecos et Longobardos proditores appellabant, multis eos iniuriis
lacessentes." The people of Messina rose up (audacter prosiliunt) in ibid., c. 53, 131. They were moved ad
seditionem in ibid., c. 54, 148.
6,3 Falcandus, Liber, c. 54, 147.
146
circulated that the Franks even planned to expel all the Greeks and thereby seize their
property.614 Intime, these false rumors and resentments would bring about horrific
violence.
Falcandus elsewhere elaborated on the piratical nature of Greek Messina and
underlined the viciousness of its inhabitants. The author called it a city {civitas) of
pirates, brigands, and thieves (piratae, latrones, predones) that contained "nearly every
kind of man . . . lacking no evil deed, averse to no outrage {omnefere genus hominum . . .
nullius expers sceleris, nullum abhorrensflagitium)." The iniquitous inhabitants often
spent entire nights playing dice, and when a group of drunken Franks rudely {improbe)
interrupted one of these games, the situation quickly escalated into an open riot among
the city's Greek population.616 Soon the Greci were killing every transalpinus they could
614 Falcandus, Liber, c. 54, 147. "Hanc exactiones cives molestissime ferentes, ceperunt inter se
primum occulte conqueri, deinde licentius ac manifestius indignari, suamque ipsorum temeritatem et
ignaviam accusare qui predones alienigenas paterentur regni thesauros et de civium iniuriis conquisitam
pecuniam in Franciam asportare." Ibid., c. 54, 148. "Asserentes Francis id esse animi ut, omnibus Grecis
expulsis, ipsi domos eorum, vineas ceteraque predia possiderent. . . itaque tota iam civitas falsis rumoribus
perstrepebat, et evidens rebellandi pretendens indicium." The chronicler also mentioned the people of
Messina as being moved by rumors in ibid., c. 53, 133.
615 Falcandus, Liber, c. 32, 108. "Hec enim civitas ex convenis, piratis, predonibus adunata, omne
fere genus hominum intra menia sua conclusit, nullius expers sceleris, nullum abhorrens flagitium, nichil
eorum que possit putans illicitum. Itaque latrones, pirate, scurre, assentatores ceterisque flagitiis irretiti
confluebant ad eum, et diem conviviis extrahentes, totis noctibus tessararum iactibus insistebant." Cf.
Sallust, Sallust's Bellum Catilinae, ed. J. T. Ramsey (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 1.14. "In
tanta tamque corrupta civitate Catilina, id quod factu facillimum erat, omnium flagitiorum atque facinorum
circum se tamquam stipatorum catervas habebat."
616 Falcandus, Liber, c. 55, 147. "Sed et Odonis Quarrelli clientes, qui per urbem ebrii vagari
consueverant, forte Grecos in domo quadam ludentes invenerunt, eorumque ludos improbe perturbantes,
cepere multis eos verborum iniuriis irritare." Although Falcandus did not explicitly state that these "clients"
were Franks, they were working for Odo Quarrel, Canon of Chartres and advisor to Chancellor Stephen of
Perche. In the following two pages of this chapter, the Greeks of Messina attacked the local stratigotus and
rose up, driven by rumors that the Franks planned to expel all the Greeks on the island. The kingdom of
Sicily was, in the period Falcandus was describing (1166-1168), controlled by a "Frankish" contingent led
by the king's chancellor, Stephen of Perche. Stephen had only recently arrived from Francia. According to
Falcandus, he and his people were disliked because of their mistreatment of Sicily's native Greeks and
southern Italians. Falcandus, Liber, c. 53, 133. For more information on these Franci in the kingdom of
Sicily, see Metcalfe, Muslims and Christians in Norman Sicily, 182. See also Norbert Kamp, "The Bishops
of Southern Italy in the Norman and Staufen Periods," in The Society ofNorman Italy, eds. G. A. Loud and
A. Metcalfe (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 198. Kamp has argued that French ecclesiastical officials were in high
demand because southern Italy lacked the institutions capable of providing qualified churchmen. Cathedral
147
find in this rampage, which the author described as an importunitas piratica, or piratical
venture.617 One of these Frankish victims, Odo Quarrel, was torn apart limb from limb
and his head was thrown in the sewer—but before this, Falcandus did not fail to note that
someone stabbed the unfortunate man in the skull and licked at the blood as an
expression of inexorabilis odium.61* For Falcandus, the Greeks were rash, full ofa hatred
that was fueled by false rumors, cruel, and disloyal. What one finds in these
characterizations are symptoms of the deep-seated fear that the "Latin" elite likely felt
toward the subject Greek population.619 The slightest dissent from the unruly "pirates" of
Messina demanded swift justice, lest there be a bloodbath such as the one Falcandus
graphically described.
William of Apulia and the Byzantines
There are almost no instances where anti-Greek sentiment is entirely absent from
these sources. In fact, only one writer, the poet William of Apulia, made any positive
descriptions of the Graeci at all. In comparison to images of the Muslims, whom the
chroniclers at times discussed with ambivalence (and occasionally even admiration) the
schools north of the Alps furnished the Sicilian kingdom with individuals like Odo Quarrel and Peter of
Blois. On the continued process of Franco-Norman immigration into southern Italy during the twelfth-
century, and on the arrival of transalpines generally, see Martin, La Pouille du VT auXIf Siecle, 525-529.
618 Falcandus, Liber, c. 55, 153. It is perhaps relevant that William ofTyre reported Bohemond
making reference to the odio inexorabili Grecorum during the First Crusade. William of Tyre, Chronicon,
in Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Medievalis 38, ed. R. B. C. Huygens (Turnholt: Brepols, 1986),
11.14. "Novi, dilectissime frater, et fama referente pridem edoctus sum quod odio inexorabili Graecorum
astutiae populum semper nostrum persequi ardentissime studuerunt."
619 Although Greek culture flourished in the court of Roger II (king from 1130 to 1154), Sicily's
Greeks were increasingly marginalized during the reign of Roger's successors, William I (1154-1166) and
William II (1166-1189). For more on this, see Houben, "Religious Toleration in the South Italian Peninsula
during the Norman and Staufen Period," in The Society ofNorman Italy, 319-341. Despite Houben's
observation that "the Greek Christians showed themselves prepared to accept a subordinate position" and
that "the co-existence between Greek and Latin Christians did not bring problems" this does not, as
demonstrated above, appear confirmed by either Malaterra or Falcandus.
148
overall lack of examples in which the Greeks received similar treatment is particularly
striking. In William of Apulia's case, what little praise he delivered was reserved for
specific Byzantine emperors, and should not be interpreted as evidence that he had any
strong Greek sympathies. Rather, William praised certain Greek characters where the
exigencies of his storyline demanded it.
Consider, for instance, the poet's treatment of Romanus IV Diogenes (1067-
1071) who personally led the Byzantine army against the Seljuk Turks in eastern
Anatolia. He was, for William, a "distinguished knight {eques egregius)" who carried an
"honest reputation (fama probitatis)."622 Romanus was ultimately unsuccessful in war,

but, at least initially, he held offthe enemy, as "he often routed the Turks."623 The
victories ended at Manzikert, where the Byzantines suffered a horrendous defeat from
their Seljuk foes. Yet even here, Romanus behaved nobly: he was more concerned for the
men under his command than for himself, and, as many of them escaped, he fought on.
With the golden eagle on his armor shining, "he cut away at the enemy spears, not
stopping to defend himself/ A chance arrow wounded the arm of the unprotected man /
And thus was he captured along with a certain part ofhis troops."624 Incredibly, the
Turkish leader, recognizing the emperor's bravery, then set Romanus free.625
In this regard, Touberthas rightly noted that the Muslims were represented almost as an
inverted image of the Byzantines. Toubert, "La premiere historiographie de la conquete normande de
l'ltalie meridionale (XF siecle)," 37. "A l'inverse de celledu grec, l'image du musulman est. . . celled'un
guerrier de valeur."
621 Both Emily Albu and Pierre Toubert have stated that William ofApulia held afavorable view
of the Byzantine Empire, which I have in this chapter tried to argue against. Cf. Albu, The Normans in their
Histories, 135; Toubert, "La premiere historiographie de la conquete normande de l'ltalie meridionale (XIe
siecle)," 31-33. ForToubert, William was "la plus "byzantinisante." Cf. Wolf, Making History, 129, who
found "negative characterizations . . . throughout William's work. The Greeks were effeminate, cowardly,
immoral, avaricious, cruel, and they dressed funny."
622 William of Apulia, Gesta, III. 15-26.
624 William ofApulia, Gesta, 111.50-55. "Indiciis aquilae, quae plus dabat omnibus armis / Aurea
conspicuum loricae innixa nitorem, / Graecorum dominus cognoscitur, ense recidens / Hostiles hastas,
149
The purpose of this episode, however, appears to have been aimed less at
glorifying the Byzantines than to juxtapose Romanus against his rivals in Constantinople.
Just before going into detail about the war against the Turks, William wrote that the
emperor's son-in-law, Michael VII Ducas, was meanwhile leading a lascivious existence
in Constantinople, allowing the empire to crumble around him. After Manzikert,
Michael lured Romanus back to Constantinople with deceit {seducere pace dolosa), then
had him blinded and deposed in a wicked act offraus. So, by praising Romanus,
William was in effect deprecating another Byzantine, making Michael VII's rise to power
all the more grotesque.
Then there is the case of Alexius I Comnenus, the chief antagonist of the Gesta,
whose final defeat at the hands of Robert Guiscard marked the culminating finale of the
poem. For that reason alone, William highlighted this emperor's virtues prior to the battle
of Durazzo, but then vindictively lingered over his degrading retreat back to
Constantinople. For example, before fighting Robert, Alexius was "vigorous with astute
prudence and strong in arms, distinguished by his courage and of noble birth {astuta
ratione vigens et strenuus armis, pectore clarus erat clarisque parentibus ortus)." This
bellator had come to the throne by defeating two "enemies of the empire," who were
"distinguished Greeks, powerful in matters of war and in resources {Insignes Graeci,
bellis opibusquepotentes). Following this meteoric rise came the emperor's defeat at
neque se defender cessans. / Forte sagitta volans incauti sauciat artus; / Sic tandem capitur quadam cum
parte suorum."
629 William of Apulia, Gesta, IV.89. Alexius was described as bellator in ibid., IV. 143.
150
Durazzo, where William revealed that Alexius was, like any other Greek, quasifemina,
reduced to tears {lacrimans) over his misfortune.
Conclusions
It would be difficult to characterize the images compiled here as anything other
than evidence of virulent hatred. In general, the chroniclers of the eleventh and twelfth
centuries alike displayed greater animosity toward the Greeks than toward the Normans'
non-Christian rivals. However much contempt William of Apulia may have shown for
Islam, his great antiheroes were Byzantines—no Muslim character in any way rivals the
wicked General Maniakes. In addition, the similarities between these depictions means
that they come closer to being true stereotypes than any of the representations of other
groups considered here. At least in the eleventh century, effeminacy, cruelty, and
lasciviousness appear to have been core aspects of the "fixed image" that Westerners held
of the Byzantines. This was in spite of the fact that the Greeks occasionally triumphed in
battle, which the chroniclers sometimes had to admit. Courage was evidently thought of
as antithetical to "Greek identity"—as Malaterra put it, when the Byzantines behaved
bravely onthe battlefield it was "against their custom {contra usum)"632
630 William of Apulia, Gesta, IV.420-424. The fact that Alexius was mentioned as both lacrimatur
and lacrimans in the space of five lines would seem to have been a deliberate attempt on the poet's partto
drive home the emperor's disgrace. Curiously, the only other time when William repeated the verb
lacrimor was with the pseudo-Michael, for whom RobertGuiscard was ostensibly campaigning. It seems
quite possible that the poet wanted to draw a connection between the two characters.
631 In this regard I disagree with Emily Albu, who has contended that William was thoroughly
sympathetic to Byzantium. She wrote that the worstcriticism came "not from the Gesta's narrator directly
but from a disgruntled Lombard (1.210-12, 223-28). The Gesta's view of Byzantium softens as the
narrative progresses." Albu, The Normans in their Histories, 135n56. Albu, however, ignored entirely the
depiction of George Maniakes, who murdered children, other obvious villains such as Michael VII Ducas
and Nicephorus Botaneiates, as well as the shameful description that the poet made of Alexius I
Comnenus's defeat.
632
Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, 1.10.
151
Amatus of Montecassino seems to have been slightly more restrained in his
deprecation of this group. This was likely in large part because his work focused mainly
on the sins of the Lombards, and for him, the Byzantines were of secondary importance.
He also finished writing prior to Robert Guiscard's invasion of the empire, which took
place in the mid 1180s, and, had he included scenes like Durazzo, his hostility would
undoubtedly have been more pronounced. There is, however, no evidence that this
author's perception of the Graeci was less hostile because he wrote prior to the launching
of the First Crusade.
Amatus could look at the Greeks of Sicily with rather sympathetic eyes since he
wrote from the vantage point of the mainland. Unlike Malaterra and Falcandus, the
Cassinese historian was unconcerned with the frustrating task that the rulers of Sicily
faced in trying to control a Christian population that often regarded the Normans not as
liberators or wise overseers, but as foreign despots. It may seem surprising that these two
Sicilian writers, theoretically closest to actual Greek communities, would have been the
most hostile, yet there is some evidence to support the notion that proximity does not
always engender an atmosphere oftoleration.633 Falcandus and Malaterra's familiarity

with Greek uprisings aroused only their contempt, and, for that reason, both spoke of
Greek perfidy.
These studies from modern sociology, although far afield, offer some confirmation of this
tendency. Mary E. Macintosh et al. "Minority Rights and Majority Rule: Ethnic Tolerance in Romania and
Bulgaria," in Ethnic Conflict in the Post-Soviet World: Case Studies andAnalysis, ed. Leokadia
Drobizheva (Armonk: Sharpe, 1998), 47. "Increased casual contact increases opportunities to confirm
stereotypes." Eugen Weber, "Democracy and Ethnic Diversity: The Case of Central and Eastern Europe,"
in Political Democracy and Ethnic Diversity in Modern European History, ed. Andre Gerrits (Stanford:
Stanford University Press, 2005), 26. "Tolerance thrives in inverse proportion to physical proximity."
While the antagonism felt toward the Greeks comes across very clearly in these sources, there is
no way to substantiate Toubert's claim that these authors wanted to justify "une veritable politique
d'apartheid pratiqute contre eux par les Normands." Toubert, "La premiere historiographie de la conquete
normande de l'ltalie meridionale (Xf siecle)," 36.
152
Situated chronologically midway between Malaterra and Falcandus, Alexander of
Telese's utter silence on the subject of the Greeks is difficult to understand, but there are
several possible explanations. He was, to begin with, a mainland author who wanted to
glorify King Roger II as a Christian paragon, which likely motivated his similar reticence
about the Muslim inhabitants of the kingdom. Greek culture reached its zenith at the time
Alexander was writing, and he may have wanted to avoid an aspect of life in the regnum
that, as a Latin monastic writer, he perhaps viewed as another unseemly element of
Roger's reign best left untouched. It is also the case that Alexander's narrative focused
almost exclusively on events in southern Italy with practically no consideration afforded
to life in Sicily or affairs in the eastern Mediterranean. In addition, for the period that he
was describing (1127-1136) the Byzantine Empire under the reign of John II Comnenus
had relatively little importance to southern Italy.634 This deafening silence from
Alexander is nevertheless quite lamentable, as his opinions about Roger II's grecophile
monarchy would have been an extremely useful point of reference. With the exception of
a passing reference to one of Roger's Greek officials, though, there is, unfortunately,
virtually nothing to go on.
Apart from such fascinating discrepancies among the authors, it is important to
note that they appear to have regarded the adjective "Greek" as something of a pejorative.
William of Apulia, in discussing the Turkish invasions of the Byzantine Empire, wrote of
the Muslims' victims as Christiani, not Graeci.636 His audience, evidently, could identify
Constantinople was far more concerned with affairs in the Balkans and its eastern frontiers. For
more on John II Comnenus and his foreign policy in the 1120s and 1130s, see Ostrogorski, History of the
Alexander, Ystoria, II.8. "Georgius Maximus Ammiratus, vir quidem Regis fidissimus atque in
negotiis secularibus exercitatissimus."
William of Apulia, Gesta, III.8-11. "Fugit gens territa cristicolarum, / Qui Romaniae loca
deliciosa colebant. / Maxima pars horum ruit interfecta nefandis / Turchorum gladiis."
153
with Christians, but not Greeks. In the same way, the people who at first greeted Roger I
so warmly during his initial encounters with Sicily's non-Muslims were called Christiani.
They only became Greeks as they turned against the count. Likewise, Amatus seems to
have regarded the term Greek with such pejorative force that he avoided ever
characterizing the Greek Sicilians as anything other than li Christien. Sympathy for the
Greeks was thus in short supply.
154
CHAPTER V
GENS, NATIO, AND POPULUS
Introduction
The purpose of this final chapter is to analyze the range of meanings behind the
words gens, natio, and populus in the four Latin chronicles of this study. Since Amatus of
Montecassino's source can only be accessed in translation, it has been excluded from this
chapter. It is hoped that the pages that follow will help unravel the variety of ways in
which medieval historians divided and categorized social groups. The data is meant to
assist in future inquiries into that topic, and to alleviate some of the uncertainties left over
from more general, speculative works.
The precise meaning of gens as a particular cultural group comes across most
clearly in the two Sicilian writers, Geoffrey Malaterra and Hugo Falcandus. The latter in
particular never treatedthe word as a synonym forpopulus, but rather assigned a special
significance to it, and also assigned it political connotations. Moreover, he only defined
five specific "peoples"—the Franks, Lombards, Saracens, Sicilians, and Apulians—as a
gens. Overall, however, it is clear from all four chronicles that, while, these three words
could possess a multiplicity of meanings, the authors as a group evinced a common
acknowledgment that the word "gens" sometimes had very specific cultural connotations.
155
Geoffrey Malaterra, William of Apulia, and Alexander of Telese
Malaterra made frequent use of the word gens throughout the four books of his
chronicle.637 The majority ofthese instances concerned the Normans,638 whom the author
described variously as great, shrewd, and strong {gens astutissima, gens adulari sciens,
gens tantae astutiae tantaeque strenuitatis, and gens magna). Most often, though,
Malaterra referred to them simply as "our people {gens nostra)." This chronicler, while
generally stressing the vivacity {strenuitas) and cunning {calliditas, astutia) of the
Normans, also acknowledged their tendency toward avarice and their lust for
domination.641 With regard to this latter proclivity, continual reference was made to the
jugum nostrae gentis, the "yoke" in which they came to hold the three peoples of Sicily
and southern Italy: the Saracens, Lombards, and Greeks. This is not the place to discuss
the multifaceted image of the Normans created by Malaterra, however, and here it is
enough to note that they were always a gens, never a populus.
The other groups defined in this way were the Greeks, Lombards, Saracens, Slavs,
and Pisans. While most of them revealed various vices over the course of Malaterra's
637 He used the word a total of forty-five times. Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, 1.2, 8; 1.3 (four
times); 1.6 (twice); 1.7 (three times); 1.8, 12; 1.16, 16; 1.30; 1.39, 25; II.2, 29 (twice); II.3; 11.14; 11.22; 11.24,
37; 11.33, 44; 11.34; 11.35, 46 (twice); 11.41, 50; III.2; III.6; III.l 1, 63; 111.13, 64 (four times); 111.19, 68;
111.20; 111.30, 75; 111.31, 76; IV.6 (twice); IV.7, 90; IV.18; IV.22, 100; IV.24 (three times); IV.25. Cf.
Lucas-Avenel, who counted forty-three instances. Lucas-Avenel, "La Gens Normannorum en Italie du
Sud," 243.
638 Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, 1.2, 8; 1.3, 8 (three times); 1.6; 1.7, 11; 1.7, 11; 1.8, 12; 1.39,
25; 11.22; 11.24, 37; 11.35, 46; III.2; III.6; III.l 1, 63; III. 13, 64 (twice); 111.20; 111.31, 76; IV.6 (twice); IV.18;
IV.24 (twice); IV.25.
639 Malaterra, Derebus gestis Rogerii, 1.3, 8; 1.6; 1.3, 9.
640 Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, 1.8, 12; 11.22; 11.35; III.2; III. 13, 64 (twice); 3.20; 111.31, 76;
IV.6; IV.18; IV.24 (twice); IV.25.
641 On strenuitas in Malaterra's text, see Capitani "Specific Motivations and Continuing Themes
in the Norman Chronicles of Southern Italy in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries," 1-46.
Gens was utilized for the Muslims on ten occasions. Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, 1.7;
112, 29 (twice); II.3; 11.14; 11.33, 44; 11.35, 46; 11.41, 50; 111.30; 75; IV.7, 90. The phrasing for the Pisans is
not altogether clear enough to establish whether Malaterra thoughtof the inhabitants of this city as
156
narrative, the Muslims alone displayed bravery and martial prowess that matched that of
his protagonists.643 It is impossible to deny that, ofthe various gentes Malaterra

mentioned, the two treated most positively were the gens Sarracenorum and gens
Normannorum. Religious differences aside, only this pair displayed courage on the
battlefield.
To put it simply, gens for Malaterra meant an extended group with discernible
characteristics. Only once did he employ the expression without reference to a specific
set of people. In that instance, the word was in the plural, and evidently referred to the
entire set of groups who inhabited Sicily: "praesul verba sacrae legis seminat in
gentibus."644 The religious aspect ofthis passage, comprising one verse in a brief poem
about the founding of a new church in Troina, is quite clear, and the fact that it could be
interpreted to mean the medieval inhabitants of the island and simultaneously allude to
the gentiles of the New Testament was certainly deliberate.645 Aside from this double
meaning, the particular and unique use of gens in this instance may have been dictated by
the metrical constraints of Malaterra's eulogy (it is one of the only points in the narrative
that the author opted against prose). Regardless of his exact reasons, however, this
example does not constitute an exception to the rule that gens referred to specific peoples,
comprising their own gens or, as seems more likely, he thoughtof them as part of the gens
Longobardorum. Ibid., 11.34. "Sed plurimam multitudinem hostium exhorrentes et ob hoc a navibus
progredi minime praesumentes, catena tantummodo, quae portum ab una ripa ad alteram claudebat,
abscissa, hoc sibi moresuae gentis pro maximo reputantes, Pisam reversi sunt."
The Slavs, while militarily capable, were not to be trusted. Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii,
1.16, 16.
645 The phrasing was perhaps borrowed from a passage written by the ninth-century Benedictine
monk Paschasius Radbertus. Paschasius Radbertus, Expositio in Evangelium Matthaei, inPatrologia
Latina 120, ed. Jacques Paul Migne (Turnholt: Brepols, 1983), XII.7. "Exivitnamque de domo sua qui
seminat verbum Dei, ut seminaret in gentibus."
157
since it alludes to the existence of multiple (but presumably unique) groups throughout
the island.
Genus, on the other hand, was a word that Malaterra applied with much less
exactitude.646 Sometimes, he inserted it into his text as a synonym for gens.641 Writing of
Roger Borsa's failure to notice the Lombards' intense hatred for the Normans, for
instance, the duke was referred to as "eorum genus nostrae gentis invisum minus
discernens."648 The Lombards were thus occasionally a gens and occasionally a genus.
The same was true of the Greeks. It would seem that the author was simply falling back
on this alternative word for the sake of tautology. Genus did not always have the same
meaning as gens, however—it could refer to descent (as in the phrase quamvis inferioris
generis esset) or even types ofmusic {genus musicae).64 In its "ethnic" sense, genus was
almost always applied to non-Normans (Lombards, Saracens, and Greeks), and in the
nominative, usually juxtaposed against "nostra gens" in a "them-versus-us" manner.
646 The term "genus" is derived from the same root as "gens" (gen-, gigno). Itsprimary meaning is
birth, descent, and origin. By extension, it denotes "an assemblage of objects (persons, animals, plants,
inanimate or abstract things) which are related or belong together in consequence of a resemblance in
natural qualities; a race, stock, class, sort, species, kind." Lewis and Short, A New Latin Dictionary, 810.
Cf. Isidore of Seville, Etymologiae, IX.2. "Gens autem appellata propter generationes familiarum, id est a
gignendo, sicut natio a nascendo."
647 It should be noted that William of Apulia did this with genus as well, but in only a single
instance, writing that the Greeks were a genus ignavum. William of Apulia, Gesta, 1.225-226. "Femineis
Graecis cur permittatur haberi, cum genus ignavum sit." This was, however, the only case where he applied
it to a particular people. Elsewhere it was related to noble ancestry or simply a "type" of something. Ibid.,
1.233; 1.451; 11.16; 11.502; III.666.
The phrase quamvis inferioris generis esset is contained in Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii,
111.31, 76. Genus was used to refer to social status based on birth in the majority (twelve times out of a total
of twenty-one) of the places where it occurred. Ibid., 1.4 (twice); 1.30, 22; 11.19; 11.24; III.10, 61; 111.28, 74;
111.31 (four times); IV.8. In one instance it referred to musical variety. Ibid., IV.16, 95. In the other eight
places, it was synonymous with gem. Ibid., 1.13, 14; 1.17, 18; 1.28; 11.29, 40; 111.27, 74; 111.30, 76; IV.18,
98; IV.24.
There was one single instance where the Normans were identified as nostrum genus. This was
also the only time where Malaterra applied the word to a specific group without employing the nominative
case. Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, IV.18, 98. Here, the Saracens were described as "nostro generi
invisos."
158
Populus, which appeared in the text just eight times, had several apparent
meanings for Malaterra as well. In a handful of cases, he utilized it to mean the
inhabitants ofa city, that is, a populace.651 Elsewhere though, its meaning intersected
more closely with that of gens. For instance, a knight in Normandy came to the citadel of
Tillieres, which was besieged by the Franks, because he could not bear to see such a
dishonor {ignominia) "to his people (populi sui)" and wanted to cast off this domination
{imperium) "from his people {apopulo suo)."652 Similarly, a Greek envoy, after meeting
with the Normans, reported back "to the leaders of his people (principibus populi sui)."
Whether Malaterra meant this in a military sense (as in an armed crowd) or cultural sense
(akin to a gens) is not entirely obvious. The former possibility seems most likely, though,
as elsewhere he came very close to using it to mean a group of soldiers: writing of the
siege of Durazzo, Robert Guiscard attacked the city "with an armed band of people
{armata populi manu)."
Finally, natio, employed on eight occasions by Malaterra, only ever meant a form
of identity based on place of origin, a sense in which Malaterra never utilized the words
gens orgenus.655 It was most frequently inthe ablative: a Greek was said to be natione
Graecus, a Norman was natione Normannum, a Breton was natione Brito, and a man
from Savoy was natione Allobrogum (a rare example of classicizing language on the
651 Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, 11.54 (the people of Stilo); 111.25 (the inhabitants of
Durazzo were the Graecorum populus); III. 18, 67 (the populace of Troina was exhausted by a siege).
655 Natio occured in Malaterra, Derebus gestis Rogerii, 1.7, 10; 11.42, 50; 11.43, 51; 11.45, 53;
III. 15, 66; IV.7 (twice); IV.16, 96.
159
author's part).656 Inthe genitive, Malaterra mentioned that Christian captives held in
Malta returned to their homes after they were freed, travelling "through the expanses of
different kingdoms, as they were of a different nation (per diversa regnorum spatia,
prout nationis eranf)."651 Thus, although not mentioning any precise natio here, the word
still related to birthplace. In one last example, when the Normans in Sicily faced a
Muslim force under the command of a new leader, Count Roger reassured his troops not
to be concerned, since that general was "eiusdem nationis, qualitatis, sed et religionis" as
all the others they had faced.658 The term, then, was a way of distinguishing between
people, and was in that regard similar to other common characteristics such as a religio.
That same essential meaning for natio was maintained throughout the text.
Though William of Apulia never employed the term natio, he made frequent use
of both gens and populus 659 The line separating the two appears to have been
considerably more tenuous, however. As with Malaterra, gens sometimes carried cultural
connotations and was for example applied to the Greeks and Normans. Yet it also
referred routinely to the inhabitants of cities (such as Amalfi and Giovinazzo).661 William
further utilized gens to mean a group of soldiers, something Malaterra never did. It was in
this sense that Robert Guiscard was said to have garrisoned Castel Sant'Angelo in Rome
656 Natione Brito and natione Allobrogum can be found in Malaterra, Derebus gestis Rogerii,
IV.7. Natione Graecus appeared twice, in ibid., 1.7, 10 and 11.45, 53. Natione Normannum was in ibid.,
11.43,51.
Gens occurred a total of 110 times. Populus was utilized 66 times.
660 Gens was employed with reference to specific cultural groups in seventy-two instances
(roughly sixty-five percent of the total). William of Apulia, Gesta, I.iii; 1.4; 1.23; 1.26; 1.31; 1.41; 1.54;
1.168; 1.281; 1.286; 1.314; 1.321; 1.363; 1.378; 1.406; 1.415; 1.423; 1.423; 1.532; 11.44; 11.62; 11.67; 11.79-80;
11.107; 11.109; 11.142; 11.149-150; 11.153; 11.163; 11.176; 11.109; 11.189; 11.245; 11.261; 11.256; 11.261; 11.323;
11.340; 11.405; 11.427^128; 11.438; 11.441; 111.98; III.101; III.132; III. 166; III.181; III.203; III.218; III.240;
III.270; III.309-310; III.321; III.466; IV.135; IV.273; IV.276; IV.281; IV.284; IV.298; IV.300; IV.322;
IV.323; IV.415; IV.438; IV.444; IV.453; V.80; V.85; V.93; V.368; V.373.
661 William of Apulia, Gesta, III.482 (Amalfi); III.540 and 553 (Giovinazzo).
160
with a guard of faithful people (fidae custodia gentis). Elsewhere, the army of Alexius
I was called a gens innumerabilis, despite the fact that the poet earlier noted that the army
contained multiple gentes (Turks as well as Greeks).663 On another occasion, a Byzantine
commander ordered his scouts to report back if they heard noise from "either horses or
people {ab equis vel gente)."664 This was not a hard and fast distinction; even when
referring to an armed force, the word still usually involved a contrast between the various
peoples (Normans, Lombards, Greeks, Saracens) since, in battle scenes, the two armies
were often members of different gentes.665
For William, moreover,populus functioned in largely the same ways as gens. It
could, to begin with, pertain to a group like the populus Normannicus or the Teutonicus
populus. More often, however, it referred to an army, as in "the people at the siege
(populus in obsidione)" or "the people with the fleet (populus cum classe)."661 As with
Malaterra, the line between a military force and a cultural group could easily blur: multus
Persarum populus, for instance, evidently expressed both concepts simultaneously.668
Populus could also mean the inhabitants of a city, a region, or even the world.669 Yet,

664 William ofApulia, Gesta, IV. 104.
For example, consider the ambiguity involved ina phrase such as"multa Graecorum gente,"
employed atone point tocharacterize the force accompanying a Byzantine general. Itcan be interpreted to
mean both a cultural group (the Greeks) and an army (i.e. "many people," or multa gens). William of
Apulia, Gesta, 1.84.
66 It occurred as asynonym for gens in ten cases (roughly fifteen percent ofthe total), almost
always concerning the "people ofItaly." William ofApulia, Gesta, 1.372 (Francorum populus); 1.432 (a
Lombard, addressing the Normans, spoke ofpopulus vester); 11.28 (Italiae populus); 11.73 (the Normans
were called iniquus populus; II.l 12 (Teutonicus populus); 11.164 (Italiae populus); 11.276 (the Normans
were described as apopulusferox); 11.475 (Latii populus); III. 170 (Italiae populus); V.71 (populus
normannicus).
The poet employed it with this meaning in nineteen instances. William ofApulia, Gesta, 1.382-
1.431; 11.97; 11.213; 111.28; 111.44; III.311; III.315; IV.60; IV.61; IV.290; IV.296; IV.526; V.7; V.37- V210-
V.294; V.344; V.355.
668 This line can be found in William ofApulia, Gesta, 111.28.
69 Populus was utilized for the people of acity in fourteen places. William of Apulia, Gesta,
11.479; 11.568; III.262; III.416; III.477; III.551; III.579; III.583; III.598; III.603: IV.167; IV.366; IV.506. It
161
most of the time, populus for William of Apulia meant just a collection of individuals in
the most general sense. For example, a Norman leader was said not to have oppressed the
people; a fish was dragged to the shore where the people could see it; Gregory VII
summoned faithful people away from evil.
Despite the degree of interchangeability between populus and gens for the poet,
the latter seems nevertheless to have carried, in certain cases, a distinctly cultural
connotation that the former did not. This is most apparent when William mentioned the
fact that the early Norman settlers welcomed outsiders into their gens. As he put it,
"whoever they saw come to them, they taught their own customs and language, so that a
single people were made {Moribus et lingua, quoscumque venire videbant, /Informant
propria, gens efficiatur ut una)." 71 Thus a common language and shared set of customs
served to define a gens.
By comparison, the variety of applications for populus found in the two eleventh-
century sources drop away in Alexander of Telese's twelfth-century text. For the abbot
of the Holy Savior, the expression almost always designated the populace of a city. In
those cases, it was usually accompanied by the adjectives universus, cunctus, or totius to
referred the people of Calabria in ibid., III. 180. The expression mundipopulus appeared in ibid., V.369-
370.
670 William of Apulia, Gesta, 11.377 (Humphrey de Hauteville never sought to oppress the people);
III. 177 (Robert Guiscard dragged a fish to the shore where the people could see it); V.264 (Gregory VII
never ceased to summon the faithful away from evil and toward moral behavior).
672 Cf. Bartlett, "Medieval and Modern Concepts of Race and Ethnicity," 52. The author included
several examples of the claim that a people should possess their own laws and customs in this article. For
example, Bartlett noted that the house of Gwynedd claimed that Edward I should let the Welsh keep their
own consuetudines, just as the Gascons, Scots, Irish, and English did. In another case, Duke Sobieslaw II of
Bohemia afforded his German subjects their own unique legal rights.
673 Alexander made no use of the words gens or natio. Populus occurred just thirteen times.
Alexander of Telese, Ystoria, 1.21, 19 (twice); 1.26; 11.34; 11.67, 55; III.4, 61; III.6, 62; III.9, 64; 111.12, 66;
111.14, 67; 111.32, 37; IV.10, 87; IV.10, 88.
162
mean the whole "populace."674 Yet, atthe same time, it was juxtaposed against two
particular social orders, the barons and clergy, which would seem to show that the
populus was in fact "everyone else."675 It could also refer to the inhabitants of a region, as
in the phrase cunctuspopulus terre, which was employed to describe all those living in
the land ofApulia.676 Most strikingly, neither natio nor gens made there way into
Alexander's history, suggesting that these words were far less meaningful in the twelfth-
century kingdom of Sicily.
Gens and Populus in the Liber de Regno Sicile
Like Alexander of Telese, Hugo Falcandus never used populus to refer to a
specific group of people. Instead, the word most frequently appeared (twenty-six times)
with reference to the populace of the kingdom in general. A few examples suffice: when
the king addressed the public, he spoke "ad populum;" a rumor was said to travel "per
populum;" the king was crowned with the consent of the people, or "populi communi
consilio." Often, (sixteen times) populus referred to the inhabitants of a specific city.
674 Alexander of Telese, Ystoria, 11.67, 55; III.6, 62; III.9; 111.14; IV.10, 88.
675 Alexander of Telese, Ystoria, 11.67, 56. "Cum ergo civitatem ipsam iam sibi subditam Rex
introiturus esset, a preordinata clericorum totiusque populi processione honorifice, prout decebat,
suscipitur." Ibid., III.4, 61. "Erat autem in eadem terra Laboris civitas quedam nomine Aversa, quam
Normanni cum Apuliam aggrederentur primitus condiderunt; que licet duodecim magnatibus militibusque
atque immenso populo in se cohabitantibus gloriaretur, tamen potius aggere, quam murali circumcingebatur
ambitu, quo contra hostes, si necesse esset, resistere possent." Ibid., III.6, 62. "Aversani heroes simulque
universus populus, quamquam certificantibus quibusdam Regem vere vivum vereque venturum audissent,
in tantam tamen devoluti sunt insaniam." Ibid., III.9. "Cui cum de navi exeunti universus civitatis populus
unanimes occurrissent, tanto excepti sunt gaudio, ut pro eo Deo gratias omnes exclamarent. . . et ab
Archiepiscopio ad monasterium usque Sancte Sophie, cum ymnis et laudibus clericalis ordo processit."
Ibid., III.32. "Post hec autem Rege Capuam redeunte primitus eidem electo, deinde eiusdem Regis filio, qui
supradictus est, Anfuso, clerus et populus singulas processiones facientes in urbem introduxerunt." The
only other place where populus occurred in a different context was during a dream vision in which King
Roger II found himself at the town of Paduli accompanied by a multitudopopuli. Ibid., IV.10.
676 Alexander of Telese, Ystoria, 1.21, 19.
677 Falcandus, Liber, c. 17.
679 Falcandus, Liber, c.15, 58.
163
Thus Falcandus wrote of Bari and the "populum eiusdem urbis;" a written message
was delivered to the people ofMessina, the "Messanensi populo;"681 the archbishop of
Palermo was elected with the people rejoicing, "gaudente populo." Less frequently
(nine times), populus pertained to civil unrest. It was in this sense that Falcandus wrote of
the fierceness of a rebelling people as "rebellis populi ferocitas;"683 a disturbance ofthe

people was called "motum hunc populi;"684 and on another occasion a commotion ofthe
people was a "populi tumultus."685 Out ofthe fifty-one occasions in which Falcandus
used the word populus, he never employed it with reference to a particular "people."
From that word count, it seems safe to conclude that, at least for this author, populus and
gens were not synonymous expressions. Although the former had several overlapping
meanings, Falcandus most commonly employed it to refer simply to a large group of
people.
While Falcandus utilized populus frequently and loosely, he used gens less often,
and with far less ambiguity. The author employed the term gens a total of only nine times
in his entire narrative. In seven instances, he used the word with reference to a specific
group, such as the Lombards or the Franks. In the other two cases, gens referred more
broadly to the people living outside of the kingdom of Sicily. The word first appeared in

682Falcandus, Liber, c. 36.
684 Falcandus, Liber, c.2\, 71.
686 Only once did hecome close to doing so. Writing about the death of Robert of Calatabiano, an
unpopular castellan, Falcandus explained that the event pleased all the peoples of Sicily, and especially the
Lombards, who had suffered greatly at his hands: "hoc factum omnibus Sicilie populis maximeque
Lombardis, quos innumeris ille malis attriverat, adeo placuit." Falcandus, Liber, c.42, 118. Although
Lombardis and populis were used within a breath of one another, there was no indication that the Lombards
were actually considered a populus. Instead, the chronicler reserved that word for the inhabitants of the
island generally, and, elsewhere, he made it clear that the Lombardi constitute a particular gens.
164
the prologue, in which Falcandus described the virtues of King Roger II. Here, he
stated that the sovereign had endeavored to learn about and adopt the customs of other
reges and gentes that appeared especially fine or useful to him: "aliorum quoque regum
ac gentium consuetudines diligentissime fecit inquiri, ut quod in eis pulcherrimum aut
utile videbatur sibi transumeret."688 The passage raises tantalizing questions about the
relationship between ethnic and political communities—were a gens and rex
interdependent in the eyes of Falcandus?
To try to address that question, it is helpful to consider how Falcandus linked rex
with gens grammatically in this passage. They were placed next to each other, and the
key word, ac, is an emphatic conjunction that typically possesses some strong copulative
force.690 Unlike et, which signifies an external relationship, ac designates a close internal
connection between the two words.691 It therefore seems reasonable to suggest that, at
least in the mind of this writer, a rex and gens necessarily went hand in hand.
The alternative reading, however, would interpret the two concepts as having
been distinct enough that the author felt compelled to identify both. Perhaps Falcandus
687 Siragusa noted that Falcandus appears to have been more sympathetic to Roger II than to his
son, William I. As Siragusa put it, Falcandus praises Roger's achievements and justifies his excesses.
Siragusa, introduction to Liber, xvii.
689 According to Susan Reynolds, the"ideal type" of community in the central Middle Ages was
the kingdom, composed of a king and his people. While endeavoring to avoid teleological presumptions
about medieval nations, Reynolds has argued that a close connection existed between political and cultural
identity. She suggested that, in the medieval mind, a gens was comprised of a people who shared in a single
law under the authority of a king. In Reynolds's view, though, a king who oversaw multiple peoples was a
rare exception to the rule, as in the case of King Stephen of Hungary. Susan Reynolds, Kingdoms and
Communities in Western Europe, 900-1300 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984), 250. This point has
been reiterated in Reynolds, "Government and Community," in The New Cambridge Medieval History, vol.
4, ed. David Luscombe and Jonathan Riley-Smith (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 86-
112. Here, she again contended that gentes were primarily political units, not communities bound by
common culture.
690 Lewis and Short, A New Latin Dictionary, 189.
691 Lewis and Short, ANew Latin Dictionary, 189.
692 Such an interpretation would therefore seem to lend support to the political definition that
Susan Reynolds ascribed to gentes. Reynolds, Kingdoms and Communities, 250.
165
simply chose ac as a kind of variatio sermonis; et does appear four times in the five
preceding lines, and he might have just thought it was time for a change. This argument
becomes less appealing and more problematic, though, when other instances of ac are
taken into consideration. Broadly speaking, Falcandus utilized the conjunction to link
ideas that were either complementary {breviter ac succinte, labores ac pericula, timoris
ac suspicionis, locum ac tempus, libere ac secure, preclaris ac nobilibus, comites ac
potentes, regis ac regine, tubis ac tympanis, primam ac secundam) or antonymous
(pads ac belli, matronarum ac virginum, longobardos ac transmontanos, episcopique ac
milites, viri ac mulieres).694 This is certainly not indiscriminate usage, since these
examples show ac indicating a degree of interdependency. A people and a king defined
one another, just as notions of peace and war, man and woman, or matron and maiden
defined one another.
If Falcandus saw a gens and rex as interdependent categories, this does not mean
that he considered a single kingdom to be composed of a single people. On the contrary,
in this text, the king of Sicily oversaw (and frequently subdued) multiple gentes. In this
693 Falcandus, preface to Liber, 4, 6; Liber, c. 1, 11; c. 4, 16; c. 6, 20; c. 9, 23; c. 11, 29; c. 26, 102;
c. 55, 158; c. 55, 156.
694 Falcandus, preface to Liber, 6, 8; Liber, c. 9, 24; c. 34, 109; c. 55, 164.
695 Susan Reynolds has suggested, however, thatthe kingdom of Sicily was thought to be made up
of a single people at least by the late twelfth century. She argued that a strong sense of community had
emerged in the regnum by 1189, that is to say, around the time Falcandus was writing. In spite of the
differences in languages and religions, Reynolds wrote, the population came to be seen "as constituting a
single people—the people of a kingdom." Yet the evidence contained in the Liber de regno Sicilie simply
does not appear to support this observation. Reynolds, "Government and Community," 109.
Contrary to Susan Reynolds, Robert Bartlett has stated that, although politics and culture could
overlap, medieval writers never explicitly linked the idea of political sovereignty with the idea of cultural
homogeneity. A medieval writer might embrace the notion of a king ruling over a single people if it were
expedient to do so, but, then again, he might not. In Bartlett's words, "there was not a strong or
predominant line of thought that a gens or a natio with its own law and language had to be a sovereign
political entity . . . There was no requirement that political boundaries coincide with linguistic or legal ones,
simply a recognition that each ethnic entity had the right to its own language and law." According to him,
although a gens was recognized to possess its own consuetudines (along with its own lex and lingua), this
by no means meant that it had to exist as a distinct political entity. In other words, distinct groups could
166
author's view, as for Geoffrey Malaterra and William of Apulia, a gens possessed certain
attributes. For Falcandus, gentes had different consuetudines that evidently set them apart
from one another. As the direct object in the sentence quoted above {regum ac gentium
consuetudines), consuetudines anchors the two genitives, regum and gentium, and further
ties them together. It is curious that Falcandus chose this word over possible alternatives,
such as leges or mores, but his reasons for doing so need not be dwelt upon here. The
term consuetudo could carry both juridical and cultural meanings, which, as one might
expect, varied greatly depending on context. Particularly in Frankish sources, a
consuetudo often appeared with reference to seigniorial privileges and duties. In other
ZQO
cases it was synonymous with mores, which seems to be how Falcandus employed it.
Indeed, throughout the Liber de Regno Sicilie, the cultural connotation of consuetudo was
readily apparent: two men were said to swear an oath "iuxta consuetudinem
siculorum;"699 there was reference to the customs of the land, "terre ipsius
consuetudinem;"700 a Frank claimed his rights according to "terre sue consuetudinem;"701
share a single ruler, as long as they each possessed their own set of unique customs. Bartlett, "Medieval and
Modern Concepts of Race and Ethnicity," 52-53.
696 Scholarship on the definitions and uses of "consuetudines" is massive and far beyond the scope
of the topic under discussion. For two classic studies that consider consuetudines and lordship, see Georges
Duby, La Societe aux lle et 12e siecles dans la region maconnaise (Paris: SEVPEN, 1971); J. F.
Lemarignier, "La Dislocation du 'pagus' et le probleme des 'consuetudines' (xe-xie siecles)," in Melanges
d'histoire du moyen age dedies a la memoire de L. Halphen, ed. Charles-Edmond Perrin (Paris: Presses
Universitaires de France, 1951), 401-410. For consuetudines in the duchy of Normandy, see Charles
Homer Haskins, Norman Institutions (New York: F. Ungar, 1960), 276-284. For the most recent work
dealing with the subject, see Thomas N. Bisson, The Crisis ofthe Twelfth Century: Power, Lordship, and
the Origins ofEuropean Government (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009), 192-196.
697 Reynolds, Kingdoms and Communities, 17.
698 DuCange, Glossarium mediae et infimae latinitatis, 2: 523. Seealso, AdolfBerger,
Encyclopedic Dictionary ofRoman Law (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1953), 587.
167
709
elsewhere there was mention of "Gallie consuetudinem." The author, in short, seems to
have seen consuetudines as a defining feature of gentes.
Gens occurred without reference to a specific group in only one other instance,
again encountered in the opening preface of the Liber. Falcandus explained that, at the
time of William I's coronation, the kingdom was so powerful that it terrified neighboring
peoples, and it was thereby able to enjoy a state of peace and tranquility: "eo tempore
regnum Sicilie strenuis et preclaris viris habundans, cum terra marique plurimum posset,
vicinis circum quaque gentibus terrorem incusserat summaque pace ac tranquillitate
maxima fruebatur."703 Just like before, the author showed a relationship between kings
and peoples. Yet unlike the earlier passage, here it was the regnum, not the rex,
confronting the gentes. It is surprising to find the abstract regnum as the subject of
several active verbs: posset, incusserat,fruebatur. This is, perhaps, because at this point
in the story the new king had just attained the crown and had not yet had a chance to act,
or possibly because Falcandus wanted to reduce the agency of King William, whose reign
he deplored. Nevertheless, why would the author have chosen regnum Sicilie instead of
gens Siculorum to perform these actions? Most likely, he saw the regnum as a more all-
encompassing expression than gens, since the kingdom was an entity made up of multiple
gentes.
The first of these, the gens Francorum, appeared early on, in the prologue to the
text. Falcandus reported that King Roger II had favored men of Frankish origin, both
because he knew of their warlike reputation, and because of his own Norman descent:
"Since he drew his own origin from the Normans, and knew that the Frankish people
Falcandus, Liber, c. 55, 145.

7.
168
excelled against all others in the glory of war, he had readily chosen to esteem and honor
very many men from across the Alps in particular {Transalpinos maxime, cum ab
Normannis originem duceret sciretque Francorum gentem belli gloria ceteris omnibus
anteferri, plurimum diligendos elegerat etpropensius honorandos)."1 4The passage is

also interesting in that it suggests a lingering connection between the kingdom of Sicily
and the people ofFrancia, the so-called transalpine105 The phrasing would seem to
further indicate that Falcandus viewed the difference between Normanni and Franci to be
slight, if not altogether nonexistent.
Elsewhere, Falcandus utilized gens in a negative context to describe the Apulians.
He stated that, when King William I went into seclusion in the year 1156, a rumor broke
707
out that the monarch had died, which led to open rebellion on the mainland. The
Apulians took up arms in the hopes of gaining freedom: "Then the most inconstant
people of the Apulians, in vain desiring liberty, which they would not have been capable
of retaining because they could not succeed in war or be tranquil in peace, took up arms,
formed alliances, and prepared the defense of fortresses {tuncApulorum inconstantissima

705 Metcalfe, Muslims and Christians in Norman Sicily, 182. Metcalfe noted thatthe Sicilian court
was dominated by a Frankish contingent during the years 1166 to 1168. See also Norbert Kamp, "The
Bishops of Southern Italy in the Norman and Staufen Periods," 198. Kamp has argued that French
ecclesiastical officials were in high demand because southern Italy lacked the institutions capable of
providing qualified churchmen. Cathedral schools north of the Alps furnished the Sicilian kingdom with
individuals like William and Peter of Blois and Richard Palmer. See also Martin, La Pouille du Vf auXIf
Siecle, 525-529.
706 Qf Thomas, The English and the Normans, 43. According to Thomas, this lack of distinction
between Franks and Normans was symptomatic of a more widespread "disappearance" of the Normans
from the historical record. Scholarship on the extinction or assimilation of the gens Normannorum extends
back to the work done by Charles Homer Haskins in the early twentieth century. See Charles Homer
Haskins, The Normans in European History (New York: F. Ungar, 1959 [reprint]). His ideas were later
reevaluated by, among others, R. H. C. Davis and G. A. Loud. Davis, The Normans and Their Myth; G. A.
Loud, "The Gens Normannorum," 104-116. For a brief overview of this topic, see David Bates and Anne
Curry, England and Normandy in the Middle Ages (London: Hambledon Press, 1994), 20.
77Other sources from the period indicate that William mayhave been ill at this time. Siragusa,
Liber, 13n.
169
gens, libertatem adipiscifrustra desiderans, quam nee adeptam quidem retinere
sufficeret, utque nee bello multum valeatnee inpace possit esse tranquilla, capescit
arma, societates contrahit, castellis muniendis operam dat)." The Apulians, defined as
inconstantissima gens, desired a liberty that they were incapable of possessing. Inherently
unreliable, they did not even wait for certainty of the king's death before initiating a
revolt, but were instead easily moved to sedition by simple hearsay. In addition to their
"great inconstancy," the image presented was that of a people who are both weak in times
of war and dissentious in times of peace. Unfit for autonomy, this was a group that
needed a foreign king.709

Curiously, a later copyist evidently felt enough attachment to the Apulians to
substantially revise the passage. In two of four manuscripts, inconstantissima became

71 0
constantissima,frustra became nonfrustra, and nee adeptam became in adeptam. The
alteration reads as follows: "tunc Apulorum constantissima gens, libertatem adipisci non
frustra desiderans, quam in adepta quidem retinere sufficeret, ut que et bello multum
valeat et in pace possit esse tranquilla, capescit arma, societates contrahit, castellis
muniendis operam dat."711 It would appear that, in one fell swoop, some anonymous hand
attempted to take the sting from Falcandus's invective.

709 The rebellion, which did in fact happen, lasted from 1155 to 1156 and involved well-
established mainland nobility as well as inhabitants of major cities like Brindisi. Francois Neveux, "1100-
1194: le Royaume normand," 30-31. This uprising was in fact part of a larger Mediterranean conflict that
witnessed the involvement of the papacy, the Holy Roman Empire, and the Byzantine Empire. Peace was
made between Pope Adrian IV and King William I in 1156. A thirty year peace was made with the
Byzantine Empire in 1158.
710 See Siragusa, introduction to Liber, xxxi-xxxvii. These differences occur in Paris, B. N. MS.
Lat. 6262 and Paris, B. N. MS. Lat. 14357. Without getting into particulars, suffice to say that Siragusa
convincingly demonstrated that the latter codex was derived from the former. He dated both of these to the
fourteenth century, but thought it possible that MS. 6262 could date to the end of the thirteenth century.
Thus, it does seem that the pro-Apulian alterations were the work of a single individual. Later, the
adulterations were faithfully, and probably unwittingly, copied from MS. 6262 into MS. 14357.
170
Strong attachment to the land and people of Apulia must have compelled a later
copyist to make these changes. Presumably, the revisionist was himself from the region,
or had personal connections to someone who was. Loyalty to the gens, whether cultural
or geographic, apparently meant something to the scribe who did this. When exactly the
revisions were made will never be known. The discrepancies can be found in the second-
oldest extant manuscript, which dates to around the year 1300, so the changes must have
been made fairly early in the life ofthis text.712 What does not appear to be in doubt,
though, is that the hostile account should be taken as Falcandus's true original version.
While it is tempting to suggest that the pro-Apulian version might belong to the original
text, and that the anti-Apulian sentiments are the products of a later hand, the author's
71 ^
antipathy for this group surfaced elsewhere in the narrative.
Although more outwardly loyal, the Apulians' neighbors in Sicily emerged in an
only slightly better light. Falcandus used the relative tranquility in Sicily as a chance to
make an unflattering comparison between the gens Siculorum and the gens Apulorum.
The Sicilians remained at peace not out of loyalty, he said, but because they were more
cautious: "Meanwhile, as Apulia was in turmoil in this way, Sicily was still at peace, and
not disturbed by any riots; for though both peoples {gens) are faithless, shifty, and
inclined to carry out any deed, the Sicilians, however, are more cautious. By
712 As mentioned above, Paris, B. N. MS. Lat. 6262 dates probably from around the year 1300.
The only earlier manuscript, V. Cod. Vat. Lat. 10690, was unavailable to the editor of the most recent
critical edition. According to Evelyn Jamison, these discrepancies are not present in Cod. 10690. See
Jamison, Admiral Eugenius, 219.
713 Specifically, Falcandus later described a second uprising that reinforces the image of the
Apulians as a treacherous gens. This new revolt occurred amidst reports that the chancellor, Maio of Bari,
was plotting the king's overthrow. The reader learns how sedition first began with the people of Melfi, who
were habitually roused by such hearsay. Falcandus, Liber, c.l 1, 29. Given that Melfi was one of the
principal towns of Apulia, and that its inhabitants are said to be easily influenced by rumors, these would
seem to be the same Apulians discussed previously. After the Melfenses took the first step of rejecting both
Maio's orders and his representatives, a group of nobles went further and formed a societas dedicated to the
chancellor's death.
171
dissimulation they conceal their intent and pacify those they hate with cringing flattery in
order to attack unexpectedly and more terribly {interim, dum in hunc modum Apulia
turbaretur, adhuc Sicilia quiescebat, nee ullis agitabatur tumultibus; licet enim utraque
gens infida, mobilis pronaque sit ad quodlibetfacinusperpetrandum, Siculi tamen
cautius dissimulando celantpropositum et quos oderunt blandis adulationibus demulcent,
ut improvisi ledant atrocius)."114 Both groups were identified as a fickle, faithless people,
a gens infida mobilis, inclined to carry out anyfacinus, or villainous deed. The difference
between the two gentes was only that Sicilians concealed their intentions through blandis
adulationibus—cringing flattery.715 The deception, wrote Falcandus, allowed them to
attack unexpectedly, and all the more terribly. The verb laedo, which can mean not only
to harm or to injure, but also to betray or to violate, completed this contemptuous portrait
71 ft
of the Sicilian people perfectly.
Along with the Franks, the Apulians, and the Sicilians, the only other groups
Falcandus defined as a gens were the Saracens {Sarraceni) and northern Italian Lombards
{Lombardi). After 1160, life in Sicily was increasingly characterized by the turmoil that
had been previously confined to the mainland.717 In the middle ofthe decade, the leader
of the Lombard community ordered his followers to massacre the Muslim inhabitants on
the eastern side of the island.718 As Falcandus recorded it, the Lombardi made sudden
attacks on nearby places, killing those Muslims living alongside Christians as well as

715 Lewis and Short, ANew Latin Dictionary, 46.Adulatio is most often associated with canine
obedience. The quote provided by Lewis and Short is that of Nonius: "adulatio est blandimentum proprie
canum, quod et ad homines tractum consuetudine est." Ibid., 46.
716 Lewis and Short, ANew Latin Dictionary, 1029.
717 Metcalfe, The Muslims ofMedieval Italy, 189.
718 David Abulafia, Frederick II: A Medieval Emperor (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992),
43.
172
• • 719
those living on their own estates, without regard for the age or gender of their victims.
Unable to count the number of that people who died, Falcandus reported that the
survivors fled either in secret or by taking on the appearance of Christians. According
to him, the Saracen dread for the Lombard people remained so strong that, not only did
they no longer live in that region, they also avoid going there altogether: "And even now
they hate the people of the Lombards so much that not only do they still not want to live
in that part of Sicily, but they wholly avoid approaching it {et usque nunc adeo
Lombardorum gentem exhorrent, ut non solem earn partem Sicilie deinceps habitare
noluerint, verum etiam accessum eius omnino devitent)." Far removed from the
standard image of Sicily as a land of cultural harmony, this somber passage presents a
722
deadly struggle between two competing gentes.
Above all, though, this episode demonstrates the author's rather nuanced view of
Christians, Muslims, and the relationship between them. The author's cool tone shows
that his empathy for these Sarraceni was certainly limited, but he did, at the very least,
see the affair as a threat to the peace. The very fact that the event was reported at all, let
alone that the Muslims were depicted as victims, would seem significant. Falcandus,
while living in the age of crusade, did not interpret the as a simplistic confrontation
between good and evil.
719 Falcandus, Liber, c. 21, 70. "In locafinitima repentinos impetus facientes, tarn eos qui per
diversa oppida Christianis erant permixti, quam eos qui separatim habitantes villas proprias possidebant,
nullo sexus aut etatis habito discrimine, perimebant."
720 Falcandus, Z,/6er, c. 21,70.
12 The event was corroborated by Romuald of Salerno. See Siragusa, Liber, 70n2. A recent
commentator observed that the nature of the violence seems to have moved "even a sceptical and hardened
observer like Falcandus." Metcalfe, The Muslims ofMedieval Italy, 185. One should, nevertheless, be
careful not to read too much modern sympathy into a text written by a man who was, generally speaking, a
very unsympathetic writer.
173
Conclusions
Gens seems to have had far greater utility for eleventh-century authors than their
twelfth-century counterparts. Both Geoffrey Malaterra and William of Apulia took
frequent recourse to it, using the word in a variety of different applications. For
Malaterra, gens typically had a particular cultural connotation, and he defined both his
own people {nostra gens) and the enemies of the Normans in this way. This was not a
universal rule for him, however. As has been shown, gens could mean simply a "people"
in the sense of the inhabitants of a given locale. In other cases, moreover, Malaterra
apparently found genus to be an acceptable alternative to gens. The word had much more
versatility for William, though, who nevertheless demonstrated some notion that gentes
were unique groups who possessed their own language and customs. Although the
expression was entirely absent in Alexander of Telese's history, Falcandus evidently
thought of a gens as connected to the concept of a monarchy, or regnum, and as
possessing distinct consuetudines.
It would also appear significant that only one of the four authors, Malaterra, used
the word natio. He was the sole author known with certainty to have come from outside
Italy. Perhaps natio had greater resonance in eleventh-century Francia than in the central
Mediterranean. Alternatively, Malaterra may have been borrowing from some literary
model to which his counterparts did not have access. Whatever the case, it is clear that
natio had a distinct geographic component, relating to a place of origin, which neither
gens nor populus ever carried.
Finally, populus bore a more precise meaning for the twelfth-century writers.
Alexander of Telese and Hugo Falcandus took great care to apply it solely to the
174
"populace" of cities or regions, or to refer to a large body of people generally. The term
never meant a specific group, as gens did. Such was not the case for William of Apulia or
Geoffrey Malaterra, who sometimes assigned populus a meaning very close, or even
identical, to that of gens. This difference in usage is particularly noticeable with William,
who sometimes employed both words in a military connotation to mean an army.
In spite of these semantic fluctuations, it can nevertheless be concluded that gens
did hold a special importance for Malaterra, William, and Falcandus. Malaterra, an
immigrant from across the Alps, constantly applied the word to the Normans, nostri,
whom he clearly identified with. William of Apulia revealed that a unified people existed
through a set of shared customs and a common language. Hugo Falcandus, writing nearly
a century later, displayed a unique and highly complex opinion about each of the groups
he defined as a gens. Some of his opinions had a basis in historical events, and
discrepancies in the manuscript tradition show that those opinions could also elicit a
reaction from his medieval readers. The image that emerges from all of these sources is
that of a diverse region comprised of several competing gentes, which, despite their
adversity, nevertheless came in time to be united under a single king.
175
CHAPTER VI
CONCLUSION
Preface
This study began by examining a passage from William of Apulia's Gesta Roberti
Wiscardi that showed how native Italians perceived the Normans with hostility, viewing
them as a barbarous and alien people. In the intervening pages, it has become quite
apparent that non-Normans could be regarded with venomous antagonism as well. This
analysis has shown that the chroniclers did, at times, apply stereotypical attributes to the
peoples of Sicily and southern Italy. Yet it is equally clear that other practical
considerations related to the writing of history frequently affected the extent to which
these writers allowed themselves to voice their prejudices. If a stereotype is defined as
discrimination based on uninformed, unthinking, irrational response, then it can safely be
said that the chroniclers of Norman Italy rarely found use for them. Much more often,
these authors made a careful, deliberate, and highly pragmatic choice when it came to
denigrating other peoples; to quote Ludovica de Nava, "the historian dominated a pliable
past, bending it from time to time according to the exigencies of the moment, justifying
events."723
723 De Nava, introduction to Ystoria, xxvi. "Lo storico spadroneggiava su un passato duttile,
piegandolo di volta in volta secondo le esigenze del momento, nei porre le giustificazione dei fatti."
176
The Image of the Saracens
Although Geoffrey Malaterra's topic—Roger de Hauteville's conquest of Sicily—
required him to make the Saracens into the principal antagonists of his narrative, he never
tried to deprecate them in any consistent way. In many cases, this chronicler displayed
complete ambivalence toward this group, and his anti-Muslim rhetoric occurred, at most,
in a haphazard fashion. When his Muslim characters did function as villains, the author
occasionally portrayed them as deceitful, fickle, and greedy, relying on different forms of
the words dissimulare, lucror, fraus, levitas, ars, traditio, and callidus. He did not apply
these expressions exclusively to Saracens, however, but to a number of other groups as
well, including the Normans. Thus it cannot be said that he assigned them any negative
attributes that were somehow uniquely "Saracen." In that regard, it is appropriate to
speak of an absence of stereotypes about the Muslims in this eleventh-century chronicle.
The most one can observe is that the Saracens were held up as a sort of mirror image of
the Normans themselves, insofar as they were the only other gens singled out for bravery.
Malaterra was writing for a Norman audience that, perhaps, recognized in
Muslim fighters a warrior culture not all that different from its own. At the very least, this
writer was motivated by a desire to furnish his hero with enemies who were worth
defeating—people concerned with honor and willing to die for their beliefs. Malaterra's
creative license (if such an anachronistic phrase can be used) was further constrained by
Count Roger's pragmatic attitude toward the Muslims—both his own subjects and the
sovereign rulers of North Africa.
It cannot be emphasized enough that the consolidation of power in Sicily was an
extremely drawn out process (lasting more than thirty years) and that Christian soldiers
177
were always a minority on the island, even into the last decade of the eleventh century.
For that very reason, Roger de Hauteville was always compelled to cut deals with the
local population and to incorporate its manpower into his own military. The alternative—
an intransigent policy of forced conversion—would surely have provoked a widespread
uprising and guaranteed his defeat. Malaterra was probably aware of these realities, and
faced his own challenges in crafting a narrative that highlighted the count's achievement
without faulting him for a policy of tolerance and cooperation toward non-Christians.
Amatus of Montecassino mixed positive and negative images of the Saracens as
well, although he never portrayed them as courageous. Time after time, the Muslims in
his text merely succumbed to the Norman onslaught or fell victim to Norman cunning. It
is apparent that, unlike other writers, this author felt less of a need to enliven his story
with exciting battle scenes in which the enemy sometimes triumphed. While Amatus
made it clear that he regarded Islam as no more than detestable "folie" he nevertheless
admitted, like Malaterra, that the Normans had to forge working relationships with the
Muslims and also acknowledged that these people sometimes fought alongside Christian
soldiers in Roger de Hauteville's armies.724 As with Malaterra, the Cassinese historian
offered no comment about this, and never employed negative language for Saracen
leaders who were allied with the count.
Amatus did, on the other hand, show a far greater preoccupation with morally
justifying the war in Sicily than any of his contemporaries. By dwelling on the cruel
mistreatment of li Christien, he sought to supply the Normans with a valid pretext for
their military endeavor there. This theme of the "yoke of Islam," largely absent in the
other sources examined here, shows that Amatus felt compelled to legitimize the blatant
178
aggression of his protagonists. It suggests, moreover, that he did not see a conflict with
non-Christians as somehow justified in and of itself.
This issue did not preoccupy William of Apulia, who, of all the chroniclers,
engaged in the strongest anti-Muslim rhetoric. Referring to the Saracens with intolerant
expressions like perversa gens, he explicitly identified them as enemies of God and
servants of demons.726 The poet, unique among these authors, portrayed the campaign in
Sicily as a nobile bellum that "exalted the faith."727 He was further unlike his prose
counterparts in that he never admitted to any cooperation between the Normans and
Muslims, and instead always assigned the latter the role of antagonist. Even so, William
did not roundly condemn all Muslims as categorically devoid of virtue. The gracious
treatment Emperor Romanus IV Diogenes received following his defeat at Manzikert is
testament to the notion that they could be both capable and noble adversaries on the field
of battle.
In general though, the poet took an aggressive approach toward the Muslims, and
the reasons for this are twofold. First, he was writing with a mainland perspective, and his
primary patron, Roger Borsa, did not oversee a large Muslim majority like his uncle,
Roger de Hauteville, did. William wanted to glamorize every aspect of the life of his
protagonist, Robert Guiscard, and part of that effort necessarily involved presenting the
duke's involvement in Sicily as a campaign aimed at liberating the island from the
infidel. The other motivator was of course Urban II (1088-1099), to whom the Gesta
Roberti Wiscardi was also dedicated. William undoubtedly hoped that adding a certain
725 It should be mentioned that Roger's campaign was still incomplete when Amatus wrote, and so
he perhaps wanted to lend moral support to an endeavor that was, in his time, still an ongoing affair.
179
amount of anti-Islamic rhetoric to his poem would please that pontiff, who was
728
responsible for preaching the First Crusade at Clermont in 1095.
Given that Alexander of Telese focused on King Roger II, a ruler known for his
reliance on Muslim soldiers as well as for a royal court that incorporated aspects of Arab
culture and learning, his overall lack of commentary would seem surprising. His
chronicle, which spans four books, in fact only made two references to the Saracens, and
these were almost wholly lacking in opinion. Other contemporary sources reveal that
Roger II turned his Muslim forces loose on the mainland, where they wrought great
destruction on the unfortunate Christian populace. It is impossible to think that the abbot,
who himself lived in southern Italy, was completely oblivious to those stories. Regardless
of the reliability of these reports, they do imply a degree of historical reticence on
Alexander's part. In any event, his passing remark about the ira that southern Italians felt
toward the king's Muslim soldiers likely indicates that there was far greater tension
between the members of the two religions than this historian was prepared to admit.
Writing with a slightly later perspective, Hugo Falcandus instead readily noted the
breakdown of coexistence under the reigns of King Roger II's successors. Deploring
what he saw as tyrannical misrule, he directed much of his invective against the palace
eunuchs of Palermo, whom he saw as a treacherous threat to the stability of the Sicilian
monarchy. In a fashion reminiscent of Amatus, he portrayed these court officials as a
subversive cohort of crypto-Muslims who wielded their incredible influence to oppress
Christians and encourage apostasy. The Sarraceni for Falcandus were, however, just one
of several gentes threatening to topple the existing social order. He viewed them as
728 On the dedication to Urban II and Roger Borsa, son of Robert Guiscard, see Mathieu,
introduction to Gesta, 11.
180
licentious, hateful, and, above all, sources of social unrest. Such was the case, at least, for
the Muslims on the island, but the Almohads in North Africa were another matter.
Falcandus recognized this group as talented in matters of war, and noted the benevolence
with which their rex treated his defeated Christian adversaries. As with the other earlier
sources, therefore, it cannot be said that the Muslims of the Liber de Regno Sicilie were
universally bad.
The diverse ways in which these authors approached the Muslims indicate that no
commonly held standard image of this group existed. Indeed, their different depictions
seem to have been the very opposite of a stereotype, in that they were not based upon
preconceived ideas about what a Saracen "should be." Rather, the images they chose to
construct were informed, contingent, and rational: informed by the style and content of
their texts, contingent upon the demands of their patrons and audiences, and rational in
that they made politically "smart" choices about what to write, rather than operating at a
purely emotional level.
This is by no means to imply, however, that religious antagonisms played no part
in shaping the ways these chroniclers perceived the Muslims. Religion, it seems,
constituted only one of several factors that informed their views. As has be seen, other
exigencies—those of style, intent, and patronage—all helped dictate the various
depictions of "Saracens" contained in these texts at least as much as religious
considerations. Above all, the fundamental conclusion to be drawn from this analysis is
that the authors did not see the division between Christians and Muslims in black and
white terms. It would be both superficial and wrong to say that they depicted Christians
positively and Muslims negatively. On the contrary, the chroniclers surveyed in this study
181
engaged in denigration when it was useful to them, and avoided it when such an approach
was not to their advantage.
The Image of Italians
With the exception of William of Apulia, these writers generally took a hard line
toward the people of Italy. Geoffrey Malaterra expressed some of the harshest opinions
toward the native inhabitants of the mainland out of all the writers examined here. The
southern Italians—Apulians and Calabrians alike—appeared treacherous and cowardly in
the pages of his text. The citizens of Bari, one of the greatest cities of Apulia, were no
more than rebelles who failed in their attempt to murder Robert Guiscard when he laid
siege, then foolishly sealed their fate by alerting the Normans to the arrival of
reinforcements, which were promptly intercepted.7"9 The northern city states ofPisa and
Venice, by comparison, fared no better. The Pisans engaged in petty wars of retribution
with the Muslims of Sicily and Ifriqiya, but were not real warriors. The Venetians
showed more preoccupation with avaritia than fighting, and could only rival the
Normans in combat through the use of doli.
Malaterra, a transmontanus residing in Sicily, could freely regard the people of
the mainland with utter contempt and make his thoughts known in writing without
consequence. He wrote for Count Roger and for a largely Norman audience. With no
attachment to the land or inhabitants of the peninsula, it is little wonder that Malaterra
would have perceived Lombard resistance as nothing but base treachery. The maritime
powers of Pisa and Venice, on the other hand, posed a serious threat to Norman Sicily's
Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, 11.40—11.43.

730 Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, HI.26-IH.28.
26—11]
182
goal of achieving hegemony in the central Mediterranean. Without any constraint from
his patron or audience, Malaterra gave his pen total freedom when it came to the natives
of Italy, north and south alike.
Amatus of Montecassino, whose providential storyline focused on the sins of the
Lombards, did not treat this group more positively than Malaterra. Yet the motivation
behind his depiction of the southern Italians was quite different. Whereas Malaterra was
reacting to the recalcitrance of an inimical alien gens, Amatus was attempting to explain
what had brought about the downfall of his own people. With his characteristic
moralizing, the monk revealed that their iniquite and perversite were the root cause of
the Norman takeover, an event ordained by God Himself.731 Well aware ofthe hardships
Montecassino had endured from Lombard rulers, Amatus knew that their impiety had
incurred divine wrath. Robert Guiscard's wife, Sichelgaita, who richly endowed his
monastery, constituted an understandable exception. Thus, in writing about the history of
southern Italy, the Cassinese identity of Amatus trumped whatever loyalty he may have
felt toward the gens Longobardorum.
William of Apulia could not and would not condemn the Italians to the same
degree. He wrote for a southern Italian audience that consisted of combined Transalpine
and Lombard elements. His patron, Roger Borsa, was descended on his mother's side
from the ruling dynasty of Salerno. In this cultural and political milieu, to criticize the
Lombards on any explicit level would be foolish. The poet therefore endeavored to gloss
over the less glamorous aspects of his story, such as the debacle of Civitate, where he
731 Amatus accused Lombards of perversity, orperversite, nine times. Amatus of Montecassino,
Storia, 1.37; 1.38, 50; 1.39, 52; 11.13, 70; 111.38,15; IV.13, 192; IV.42, 214; IV.43, 216; VIII.24, 366. He
associated them with iniquite seven times. Ibid., 1.35, 47; 1.38, 50; 1.38. 50; 1.40; 111.24, 139; IV.39, 211;
IV.41, 212; IV.47.
183
took pains to castigate central Italians in particular rather than all Italians generally. His
evident sympathy for the Venetians and Baresi, whom he praised as courageous fighters
despite their resistance to Robert Guiscard, is perhaps attributable to a desire to populate
his epic with worthy adversaries.
Alexander of Telese hotly criticized the mainlanders for the insolent resistance
they offered King Roger II. Wittingly or unwittingly, this chronicler actually repeated a
number of the ideas expressed by Malaterra and Amatus in the previous century. The
Longobardi were sinful, cowardly traitors. Their malitia and nequitia had earned them
heavenly punishment, which King Roger, the sword of God, ably delivered.
Unsurprisingly, Alexander also condemned the northern Italian inhabitants of Pisa
because of the military support they gave to the rebellious southern barons. Although this
author attacked the southern Italians because they opposed his patron and protagonist, it
is nonetheless fascinating that he employed the same standard images of the Lombards
found in the texts of his predecessors.
Hugo Falcandus, who carefully distinguished between northern Italian Lombardi
and southern Italian Longobardi, voiced very different opinions about each. Southerners
were an inconstantissima gens, and unreliable warriors who could be trusted neither in
times of war nor peace. The northerners who had immigrated to Sicily were instead
courageous and faithful fighters, even when engaged in open rebellion. This author's bias
is fairly obvious, and his opinions probably owed much to the fact that he welcomed the
Lombardi as a useful counterweight to the non-Latin and non-Christian gentes of the
kingdom—the Greci and Sarraceni.
732 Alexander of Telese, preface to Ystoria, 3.

184
These depictions seem to have been less consciously constructed and based more
on a preconceived "fixed image" than were representations of the Muslims. In that
respect, stereotyping does appearto have been an influential factor in shaping perceptions
of the Lombards. Every one of these five authors cited military incompetence and a
proclivity for betrayal when discussing the inhabitants of southern Italy. William of
Apulia, it is true, wisely tempered his criticisms, but did not exclude them altogether.
Amatus and Alexander, moreover, both associated the Lombards with a kind of sinful
depravity that had offended God, thereby justifying their downfall. Malaterra and
Falcandus, whose attitudes were more uniquely Sicilian than the rest, both unrestrainedly
slandered the gens Longobardorum as a whole because they had less to lose and
presumably held a more "insular" attitude toward foreigners. The similarity in their
treatment of this people is all the more significant in that they wrote almost a century
apart from one another, and in that these opinions seem not to have been consciously
constructed, but rather, based on an emotionally charged aversion to a group viewed as
hostile and foreign. In general though, all of these authors depicted the Longobardi as
treacherous and militarily inept, which would therefore seem to have been genuine
stereotypes.
The Image of the Greeks
Stereotypes were even more apparent in treatments of the Greeks, whom no
chronicler regarded fondly. Malaterra's Graeci—both Sicilian and Byzantine—were
cowardly to a man and weak beyond belief. Courage was simply not in their nature, and
to combat their foes they often turned to deceit. They were, in addition, more inclined to
185
luxury than the arts of war, a tendency Malaterra and his Norman audience would
naturally have observed with loathing. Malaterra also noted their cruelty, writing of the
abusive treatment the Norman mercenaries received from their Byzantine masters and
detailing the vicious palace coups that characterized life in Constantinople.
Amatus portrayed li Grex in much the same manner. He highlighted their
recurring cowardice in his descriptions of the battles of southern Italy, going so far as to
compare Byzantine soldiers to women. Their brutality toward the people of Italy was
likewise widely attested. They were inclined toward betrayal, and could only fight their
enemies par subtil tradement orby hiring mercenaries.733 Although the main task of
Amatus was to chronicle the sins of the Lombards, he nevertheless found opportunities to
criticize these wicked and effeminate people.
Such ideas were hardly unknown to William of Apulia, who touched on all of
these themes as well. He provided numerous examples of Byzantium's soldiers fleeing
from battle, and wrote that, after the Normans' initial victories, the Byzantines were
unwilling to come out from behind their walls. The Graeci were also lascivious and cruel,
as they were for Amatus and Malaterra. Like the Cassinese historian, moreover, William
compared the Greeks to women. If there are a few examples of Byzantine leaders who
defied the rule and acted bravely and honorably, this was due to the poet's stylistic needs,
not his sympathy for Byzantium. The great bellator Alexius I Comnenus was, after all,
reduced to tears after suffering defeat from Robert Guiscard. Most of the time, the
Byzantines fit the mold of Emperor Nicephorus Botaneiates: they were "inept in war, yet
wise, with an ingenious mind; on guard against secret dangers, unwarlike, and considered
733 Amatus, Storia, 1.15.
186
fearful rather than to be feared {ignavus bello, tamen ingeniosa / Mente sagax; contra
furtivapericula cautus, I Imbellis, metuensplus quam metuendus habetur)."
Although Alexander of Telese had nothing to say about the Graeci, Hugo
Falcandus portrayed them as cruel and treacherous. The Greek-speaking population of
Sicily v/QYQpiratae, latrones, andpredones who had nothing but inexorabilis odium for
the island's northern European inhabitants.735 As with Malaterra, Falcandus regarded the
Greek subjects of Sicily as a dangerous fifth column, treating them with an especially
severe brand of hostility. Whereas the mainland chroniclers could look at the Christian
inhabitants of Sicily with benign ambivalence, Falcandus and Malaterra's familiarity with
uprisings on the island induced them to discuss Greek perfidy in great detail.
The chroniclers of the eleventh and twelfth centuries alike displayed greater
animosity toward the Greeks than toward the Normans' non-Christian rivals, the
Muslims. Especially profound similarities are apparent in the earliest three texts, all of
which attribute weakness, cowardice, cruelty, and treachery to the Graeci. Amatus,
Malaterra, and William of Apulia shared a "fixed image" toward this group that was built
upon these negative characteristics. Hugo Falcandus, who wrote of the Greeks as a
seditious and particularly hateful sector of Sicilian society, seems in large part to have
continued the stereotypes propagated by his predecessors, above all those of Geoffrey
Malaterra. These authors, who were not bound by any need to treat the Graeci with care,
as they sometimes were for the Lombards and Saracens, could therefore voice the
uninformed misconceptions that they held about the Greeks with total liberty.

735 Falcandus, Liber, c. 32, 108; ibid., c. 55, 153.
187
Gens, Natio, and Populus
Further discernible similarities and differences can be detected in the terminology
employed to denote a group of people. Malaterra relied on the noungens first and
foremost with reference to the Normans. He was also the only chronicler to use natio, a
word that connoted origin or birthplace in his narrative. Populus for Malaterra, tended to
have broader meanings, and seems to have been applicable to virtually any assembly of
humans. His contemporary, William of Apulia, exercised considerably less restraint.
Gens and populus for him possessed multiple meanings that often overlapped. Both
words could be found referring to the inhabitants of a city or to an army. The distinction
is made even less clear cut by the fact that these words, when employed in a military
sense, still usually involved a contrast between various peoples since the two forces
typically hailed from different cultural backgrounds (Norman, Muslim, Greek, and
Lombard).
Twelfth-century authors seem to have seen far less interchangeability between
gens and populus. For Alexander of Telese, the latter expression never denoted a cultural
group or military force, but rather referred to the populace of a city. Such was essentially
the case for Falcandus as well, who employed the word to mean a body of inhabitants
generally. For him, a gens was a special group bound together by shared customs and
laws. The kingdom of Sicily in the Liber de Regno Sicilie was a land divided by the
bloody conflicts taking place between these disparate gentes.

Concluding Remarks
Prejudice remains a difficult concept to unravel in modernity, and the task of the
medieval historian who studies cultures in contact is no less problematic. Hostile attitudes
toward an entire set of people can be shaped by any number of factors, and these are
often illogical. In this exploration of the definitions and perceptions of different groups,
there nevertheless seems to have been a certain logic to the way these authors engaged in
denigration. Indeed, their patrons, their audience, and their writing style all helped shape
their depictions. These considerations frequently took precedence over cruder forms of
emotionally charged invective.
These authors did not merely treat every group the same, casting every people in
some generic mold of alien "other." For some of these authors, the Saracens and
Lombards were sensitive topics that had to be treated with delicacy. This was, however,
not the case for the Greeks, whom the chroniclers all treated as objects of scorn and
derision. This study has therefore underscored the importance of respecting and
contextualizing each source—appreciatingthe distinct qualities that set them apart from
one another. The chroniclers of Norman Italy were careful in the language they selected,
crafting a hierarchy of denigration in which certain gentes fared better than others. In
conclusion, the perceptions and definitions applied to groups of people were rarely based
on uninformed stereotypes, but were, on the contrary, often deliberately constructed
images highly dependent on the cultural milieu in which they were created.
189
BIBLIOGRAPHY
The Sources
Alexander of Telese. Ystoria Rogerii regis Sicilie Calabrie atque Apulie. In Fontiper la
Storia d'ltalia 112. Edited by Ludovica de Nava and Dione Clementi. Rome:
Istituto storico italiano per il Medio Evo, 1991.
Amatus of Montecassino. Storia de' Normanni. In Fonti per la storia d'ltalia 76, edited
by Vincenzo de Bartholomaeis. Rome: Istituto storico italiano per il Medio Evo,
1935.
Geoffrey Malaterra. De rebus gestis Rogerii Calabriae et Siciliae comitis et Roberti

Guiscardi ducisfratris eius. In Rerum Italicarum Scriptores 5, edited by Ernesto
Pontieri. Bologna: Nicola Zanichelli, 1928.
Hugo Falcandus. Liber de Regno Sicilie. In Fontiper la storia d'ltalia 22, edited by G. B.
Siragusa. Rome: Forzani, 1897.
William of Apulia. La geste de Robert Guiscard. Edited and translated by Marguerite

Mathieu. Palermo: Istituto siciliano di studi bizantini e neoellenici, testi e
monumenti 4, 1961.
Sources in Translation
Alexander of Telese. The Deeds Done by King Roger ofSicily. Translated by Graham A.
Loud. <http://www.leeds.ac.uk/history/weblearning/MedievalHistoryTextCentre/
medievalTexts .htm>
Amatus of Montecassino. The History ofthe Normans. Translated by Prescott N. Dunbar,

introduction by Graham A. Loud. Woodbridge, Boydell Press, 2004.
Geoffrey Malaterra. The Deeds ofCount Roger ofCalabria and ofHis Brother Duke
Robert Guiscard. Translated by Kenneth Baxter Wolf. Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press, 2005.
Hugo Falcandus. The History ofthe Tyrants ofSicily by 'Hugo Falcandus' 1154-69.
Translated by Graham A. Loud and Thomas E. J. Wiedemann. Manchester:
Manchester University Press, 1998.
190
William of Apulia. The Deeds ofRobert Guiscard. Translated by Graham A. Loud.
<http://www.leeds.ac.uk/history/weblearning/MedievalHistoryTextCentre/mediev
alTexts.htm>
Other Relevant Sources
Anonymous. Carmen de victoria Pisanorum. In Poesies populaires latines du moyen age,

edited by E. Du Meril, 239-251. Paris: F. Didot 1847.
Augustine of Hippo. Epistula ad catholicos de secta Donatistarum. In Corpus Scriptorum

Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum 51, edited by Michael Petschenig. Vienna: Lipsiae,
1908. V.30.
Cicero. M. Tulli Ciceronis De Doma Sua ad Pontifices Oratio. Edited by Robert George
Nisbet. New York: Arno Press, 1979.
Erchempert. Historia Langobardorum Beneventanorum. In Monumenta Germaniae

Historica, Scriptores rerum langobardiearum et italicarum saec. VI—IX, edited by
George Waitz and Oswald Holder-Egger. Hannover: Hahn, 1878.
Isidore of Seville. Historia Gothorum. In Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores

Antiquissimi 11, edited by Theodor Mommsen. Munich: Monumenta Germaniae
Historica, 1981.
. Etymologiae sive origines. Edited by Wallace Martin Lindsay. Oxford:

Clarendon Press, 1987.
John the Deacon. Istoria Veneticorum. Edited and translated by Luigi Andrea Berto.
Bologna: Zanichelli Editore, 1999.
Liutprand of Cremona. Antapodosis; Homelia pashalis; Historia Ottonis; Relatio de

Legatione Constantinopolitana. In Corpus Christianorum 156, edited by Paolo
Chiesa. Turnholt: Brepols, 1998.
Livy. Livy: Book 21. Edited by Patrick Gerard Walsh. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press,
1985.
Livy. Titi LiviAb urbe condita. Libri XXVIII-XXX. Edited by Patrick Gerard Walsh.
Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1986.
Paschasius Radbertus. Expositio in Evangelium Matthaei. In Patrologia Latina 120,

edited by Jacques Paul Migne. Turnholt: Brepols, 1983.
191
Paul the Deacon, Historia Langobardorum. In Monumenta Germaniae Historica,
Scriptores rerum Germanicum, edited by George Waitz and Ludwig Bethmann.
Hannover: Hahn, 1978.
Sallust. Sallust's Bellum Catilinae. Edited by J. T. Ramsey. New York: Oxford

University Press, 2007.
William of Tyre. Chronicon. In Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Medievalis 38, edited

by R. B. C. Huygens. Turnholt: Brepols, 1986.
Works Cited
Abulafia, David. "The Norman Kingdom of Africa and the Norman Expeditions to
Majorca and the Muslim Mediterranean." Anglo-Norman Studies 7 (1985): 26-49.
. Frederick II: A Medieval Emperor. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992.
Adams, J. The Populus ofAugustine and Jerome: A Study in the Patristic Sense of
Community. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1971.
Albu, Emily. The Normans in their Histories: Propaganda, Myth and Subversion.
Rochester: Boydell Press, 2001.
Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of

Nationalism. New York: Verso, 1991.
Bartlett, Robert. "Medieval and Modern Concepts of Race and Ethnicity." Journal of
Medieval and Early Modern Studies 31, no. 1 (2001): 39-56.
Bates, David, and Anne Curry. England and Normandy in the Middle Ages. London:
Hambledon Press, 1994.
Berto, Luigi Andrea. "La guerra e la violenza nella «Istoria Veneticorum» di Giovanni
Diacono," Studi Veneziani 42 (2001): 15-41.
. "I musulmani nelle cronache altomedievali dell'Italia meridionale (secoli IX-

X)." In Mediterraneo medievale: Cristiani, musulmani ed eretici tra Europa e
Oltremare, edited by Marco Meschini, 3-28. Milan: Vita e pensiero, 2001.
. '"Non audaces sed fugaces.' The Image of the Byzantines in Early Medieval
South Italy: The Lombard and Norman Viewpoint." Unpublished article.
. TV vocabolario politico e sociale della "Istoria Veneticorum"di Giovanni

Diacono. Padua: II poligrafo, 2001.
192
Bisson, Thomas N. The Crisis ofthe Twelfth Century. Power, Lordship, and the Origins
ofEuropean Government. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009.
Bordone, Renato. "Affermazione personale e sviluppi dinastici del gruppo parentale

aleramico: il marchese Bonifacio "del Vasto" (sec. xi-xii)." In Formazione e
strutture dei ceti dominanti nei Medioevo: marchesi, conti e visconti nei Regno
italico, secc. IX-XII, edited by Amleto Spicciani, 29^4. Rome: Istituto storico
italiano per il Medio Evo, 1988.
Bouet, Pierre, and Francois Neveux, eds. Les Normands en Mediterranee. Caen: Presses
Universitaires de Caen, 1994.
Brandileone, F., ed. II diritto romano nelle leggi normanne e sveve del regno di Sicilia.
Rome: Fratelli Boca, 1884.
Bresc, Henri. "Gli Aleramici in Sicilia: alcune nuove prospettive." In Bianca Lancia
d'Agliano, edited by Renato Bordone, 147-163. Alessandria: Edizione dell'orso,
1992.
Brown, Gordon S. The Norman Conquest ofSouthern Italy and Sicily. Jefferson:
McFarland, 2003.
Cahen, C. "La premiere penetration turque en Asie-Mineure (seconde moitie du XIe

sidcle)." Byzantion 18 (1948): 5-67.
Cantarella, Glauco Maria. "La frontiera della crociata: i Normanni del Sud." In //
Concilio di Piacenza e le Crociate, edited by Pierre Racine, 225-246. Piacenza:
TipLeCo, 1996.
Capitani, Ovidio. "Specific Motivations and Continuing Themes in the Norman

Chronicles of Southern Italy in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries." In Lined
Lectures, edited by Ovidio Capitani, Giuseppe Galasso, and Roberto Salvini, 1-
46. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977.
Chalandon, F. Essai sur le regne d Alexis Tr Comnene: (1081-1118). New York :

Franklin, 1971.
. Histoire de la domination normande en Italie et en Sicilie. Paris: Picard, 1907.
Chelini, Andree. Le vocabulaire politique et social dans la correspondance d'Alcuin.

Aix-en-Provence: La Pensee universitaire, 1959.
Chevedden, Paul E. "A Crusade from the First: The Norman Conquest of Islamic Sicily,
1060-1091." Al-Masaq 22, no. 2 (2010): 191-225.
193
Corsi, Pasquale. "L'eunuco." In Condizione umana e ruoli sociali nei Mezzogiomo
normanno-svevo, edited by Giosue Musca, 251-277. Bari: Dedalo, 1991.
Cuozzo, Errico, and Edoardo D'Angelo. "Falcone da Benevento." In Dizionario

biografico degli italiani 44, 321-5. Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana,
1994.
D'Alverny, Marie-Therese. La connaissance de VIslam dans VOccident medieval.

Aldershot: Variorum, 1994.
Daniel, Norman. Islam and the West: The Making ofan Image. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
Davis, R. H. C. The Normans and Their Myth. London: Thames & Hudson, 1976.
Del Treppo, Mario. "Amalfi: una citta del Mezzogiomo nei secoli IX-XIV." In Amalfi
medioevale, edited by Mario Del Treppo and Alfonso Leone, 1-175. Naples:
Giannini, 1977.
Deliyannis, Deborah Mauskopf, ed. Historiography in the MiddleAges. Leiden: Brill,

2004.
Drell, Joanna H. "Cultural Syncretism and Ethnic Identity: The Norman 'conquest' of
Southern Italy and Sicily." Journal ofMedieval History 25, no. 3 (1999): 187—
202.
Duby, Georges. La Societe aux lle et 12e siecles dans la region maconnaise. Paris:
SEVPEN, 1971.
Finley, Moses I., and Denis Mack Smith. A History ofSicily: Medieval Sicily, 800-1713.
New York: Viking Press, 1968.
Flori, Jean. "La caricature de l'Islam dans l'Occident medieval." In Croisade et

chevalrie, Xle-XIIe siecles, edited by Jean Flori, 163-178. Brussels: De Boeck
France, John. "The Occasion of the Coming of the Normans to Southern Italy." Journal
ofMedieval History 17 (1991): 185-205.
Gandino, Germana. // vocabolario politico e sociale di Liutprando di Cremona. Rome:

Istituto storico italiano per il Medio Evo, 1995.
Garufi, C. A. Roberto di San Giovanni, maestro notaio e il 'Liber de Regno Sicilie'. In

Archivio storico per la Sicilia VIII. Palermo: Presso la R. Deputazione, 1942.
194
Geary, Patrick. The Myth ofNations: The Medieval Origins ofEurope. Princeton
University Press: Princeton, 2002.
Giunta, F., and U. Rizzitano. Terra senza crociati: popoli e cultura nell Sicilia del
Medioevo. Palermo: S. F. Flaccovio, 1967.
Guenee, Bernard. States and Rulers in Later Medieval Europe. New York: Basil
Blackwell, 1985.
Guillou, Andre. "Inchiesta sulla popolazione greca della Sicilia e della Calabria nei
Medio Evo." In Studies on Byzantine Italy, edited by Andre Guillou, 53-68.
London: Variorum, 1970.
Habinek, Thomas N. The Politics ofLatin Literature: Writing, Identity, and Empire in
Ancient Rome. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998.
Haskins, Charles Homer. Norman Institutions. New York: F. Ungar, 1960.
. The Normans in European History. New York: F. Ungar, 1959.
Houben, "Religious Toleration in the South Italian Peninsula during the Norman and
Staufen Period." In The Society ofNorman Italy, edited by G. A. Loud and A.
Metcalfe, 319-341. Leiden: Brill, 2002.
. Roger II: A Ruler between East and West. New York: Cambridge University
Press, 2002.
Iggers, Georg G. "The "Linguistic Turn" : The End of History as a Scholarly Discipline?"
In Historiography in the Twentieth Century: From Scientific Objectivityto the
Postmodern Challenge, edited by Georg G. Iggers, 118-133. Middletown:
Wesleyan University Press, 1997.
Jamison, Evelyn. Admiral Eugenius ofSicily: His Life and Work, and the Authorship of
the Epistola Ad Petrum and the Historia Hugonis Falcandi Siculi. London:
Oxford University Press, 1957.
Jessee, W. Scott. "The Normans in Their Histories: Propaganda, Myth and Subversion
(Book Review)." Albion 34, no. 4 (2002): 628.
Kamp, Norbert. "The Bishops of Southern Italy in the Norman and Staufen Periods." In
The Society ofNorman Italy, edited by G. A. Loud and A. Metcalfe, 185-209.
Leiden: Brill, 2002.
Kazhdan, A. "Latins and Franks in Byzantium: Perception and Reality from the Eleventh
to Twelfth Century." In The Crusades from the Perspective ofByzantium and the
195
Muslim World, edited by Angeliki E. Laiou and Roy P. Mottahedeh, 83-100.
Washington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2001.
Kedar, Benjamin. Crusade and Mission: European Approaches toward the Muslims.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984.
Kreutz, Barbara M. Before the Normans: Southern Italy in the Ninth and Tenth Centuries.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1991.
Kujawinski, Jakub. "Le immagini dell'"altro" nella chronachistica del Mezzogiomo

longobardo." Rivista Storica Italiana 118, no. 3 (2006): 768-815.
Lane, Frederic C. Venice: A Maritime Republic. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University

Press, 1973.
Lemarignier, J. F. "La Dislocation du 'pagus' et le probleme des 'consuetudines' (xe-xie

siecles)." In Melanges d'histoire du moyen age dedies a la memoire de L.
Halphen, edited by Charles-Edmond Perrin, 401-410. Paris: Presses
Universitaires de France, 1951.
Lippmann, Walter. Public Opinion. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1991.
Lopez, Roberto Sabatino. "The Norman Conquest of Sicily," In A History ofthe

Crusades, edited by K. M. Setton, 54-67. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press, 1958.
Loud, G. A. TheAge ofRobert Guiscard: Southern Italy and the Norman Conquest. New
York: Longman, 2000.
. "Amatus of Montecassino and his History of the Normans." In Mediterraneo,

Mezzogiomo, Europa: Studi in onore di Cosimo Damiano Fonseca, edited by
Cosimo Damiano Fonseca, Giancarlo Andenna, and Hubert Houben, 715-726.
Bari: M. Adda, 2004.
. "Byzantium and Southern Italy (876-1000)." In The Cambridge History ofthe

Byzantine Empire, edited by Jonathan Shepard, 560-582. New York: Cambridge
. "The Genesis and Context of the Chronicle of Falco of Benevento." Anglo-

Norman Studies 15 (1993): 177-198.
. "The Gens Normannorum—Myth or Reality?" Anglo-Norman Studies 4 (1982):

104-116.
. "How 'Norman' was the Norman Conquest of Southern Italy?" Nottingham

Medieval Studies 25(1981):! 3-34.
196
. "The Normans in their Histories: Propaganda, Myth and Subversion (Book
Review)." The English Historical Review 117, no. 474 (2002): 1310.
. "Southern Italy in the Tenth Century." In The New Cambridge Medieval History,
vol. 3, edited by Timothy Reuter, 624-645. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1999.
Lucas-Avenel, Marie-Agnes. "La Gens Normannorum en Italie du Sud." In Identite et

Ethnicite. Concepts, debats historiographiques, exemples (XIF -XIF siecle),
edited by Veronique Gazeau, Pierre Bauduin, Yves Moderan, 233-264. Caen:
CRAHM, 2008.
Macintosh, Mary E., Martha Abele Maclver, Daniel G. Abele, and David B. Nolle,
"Minority Rights and Majority Rule: Ethnic Tolerance in Romania and Bulgaria."
In Ethnic Conflict in the Post-Soviet World: Case Studies and Analysis, edited by
Leokadia Drobizheva, 37-65. Armonk: Sharpe, 1998.
Martin, Jean-Marie. La Pouille du Vf auXIf Siecle. Rome: Ecole Francaise de Rome,

1993.
Matthew, Donald J. A. "The Chronicle of Romuald of Salerno." In The Writing of

History in the Middle Ages: Essays Presented to R. W. Southern, edited by R. H.
C. Davis and J. M. Wallace-Hadrill, 239-274. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981.
Metcalfe, A. Muslims and Christians in Norman Sicily: Arabic Speakers and the End of
Islam. New York: RoutledgeCurzon, 2003.
. The Muslims ofMedieval Italy. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2009.
Newton, F. The Scriptorium and Library at Montecassino, 1058-1105. New York:

Cambridge University Press, 1999.
Norwich, John Julius. The Kingdom in the Sun, 1134-1194. New York: Harper & Row,
1970.
Ostrogorski, Georgije. History ofthe Byzantine State. New Brunswick: Rutgers

Pagano, A. IIpoema Gesta Roberti Wiscardi di Guglielmo Pugliese. Naples: S. Morano,

1909.
Pohl, Walter. "Gens Ipsa Peribit: Kingdom and Identity after the End of Lombard Rule.'
In 774: ipotesi su una transizione: atti del Seminario di Poggibonsi, 16-18
febbraio 2006, edited by Stefano Gasparri, 67-78. Turnhout: Brepols, 2008.
197
Potts, Cassandra. Monastic Revival and Regional Identity in Early Normandy.
Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 1997.
Power, Daniel. The Norman Frontier in the Twelfth and Early Thirteenth Centuries.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Ravegnani, G. / bizantini in Italia. Bologna: Mulino, 2004.
Reynolds, Susan. Kingdoms and Communities in Western Europe, 900-1300. Oxford:

Oxford University Press, 1984.
. "Government and Community." In The New Cambridge Medieval History, vol.

4, edited by David Luscombe and Jonathan Riley-Smith, 86-112. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Riley-Smith, Jonathan. The First Crusade and the Idea ofCrusading. New York:
Continuum, 2003.
. The First Crusaders, 1095-1131. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

1997.
Rodinson, Maxime. Europe and the Mystique ofIslam, translated by Roger Veinus.
Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1987.
Ronca, Umberto. Cultura medioevale epoesia latina d'ltalia nei secoliXIe XII. Rome:
Societa Laziale Editrice, 1892.
Runciman, Steven. The Eastern Schism: A Study ofthe Papacy and the Eastern Churches
during the XIth andXlfh Centuries. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955.
. A History ofthe Crusades: The First Crusade and the Foundation ofthe
Kingdom ofJerusalem. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1951.
Schneidmuller, Bemd. "Constructing Identities of Medieval France." In France in the

Central Middle Ages: Ages 900-1200, edited by Marcus Graham Bull, 15—42.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Short, Ian. "Tarn Angli quam Franci: Self-definition in Anglo Norman England." Anglo-
Norman Studies 18 (1995): 153-175.
Skinner, Patricia. '"Halt, be men!': Sikelgaita of Salerno, Gender and the Norman
Conquest of Southern Italy." Gender & History 12, no. 3 (2000), 622-641.
Southern, R. W. Western Views ofIslam in the Middle Ages. Cambridge: Harvard

198
Stein, Robert M. "Literary Criticism and the Evidence for History." In Writing Medieval
History edited by Nancy Partner, 67-87. New York: Oxford University Press,
2005.
Tabacco, G. "Vassalli, nobili e cavalieri nell'Italia precomunale." Rivista storica italiana

99 (1987): 247-268.
Taviani-Carozzi, Huguette. La terreur du monde. Robert Guiscard et la conquete

normande en Italic Paris: Fayard, 1996.
Taylor, Julie Anne. Muslims in MedievalItaly: The Colony at Lucera. Lanham:

Lexington Books, 2003.
Thomas, Hugh. The English and the Normans: Ethnic Hostility, Assimilation, and
Identity, 1066-1220. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.
Tolan, John V. Saracens: Islam in the Medieval European Imagination. New York:
Columbia University Press, 2002.
Toubert, Pierre. "La premiere historiographie de la conquete normande de l'ltalie

meridionale (XIe siecle)." In / caratteri originari della conquista normanna:
Diversitd e identitd nei Mezzogiomo (1030-1130), edited by Raffaele Licinio and
Francesco Violante, 15-49. Bari: Centro di Studi Normanni-Svevi della
Universita degli Studi di Bari, 2006.
Von Falkenhausen, Vera. "Bari bizantina: profilo di un capoluogo di provincia (secoli ix-
xi)." In Spazio, societa, potere nell'Italia dei Comuni, edited by G. Rossetti, 195—
227. Naples: Liguori, 1986.
. "II commercio di Amalfi con Costantinopoli e il Levante nei secolo xii." In

Amalfi, Genova, Pisa e Venezia. II commercio con Costantinopoli e il vicino
Oriente nei secolo XII, edited by O. Banti, 10-38. Pisa: Pacini, 1998.
. La dominazione bizantina nell'Italia meridionale dal IXall XI secolo. Bari:

Ecumenica Editrice, 1978.
Webber, Nick. The Evolution ofNorman Identity, 911-1154. Rochester: Boydell Press,
2005.
Weber, Eugen. "Democracy and Ethnic Diversity: The Case of Central and Eastern
Europe." In Political Democracy and Ethnic Diversity in Modern European
History, edited by Andre Gerrits, 32^48. Stanford: Stanford University Press,
2005.
White, Hayden. Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-century Europe.

Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974.
199
White, Lynn T. Latin Monasticism in Norman Sicily. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1938.
Wickham, Chris. Early MedievalItaly: Central Power and Local Society, 400-1000. Ann
Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1989.
Wolf, Kenneth Baxter. Making History: The Normans and Their Historians in Eleventh-
Century Italy. Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1995.
Zancani, Diego. "The Notion of'Lombard' and 'Lombardy' in the Middle Ages." In
MedievalEuropeans: Studies in Ethnic Identity edited by Alfred P. Smyth, 217—
232. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1998.
Reference Tools
Berger, Adolf. Encyclopedic Dictionary ofRoman Law. Philadelphia: American

Philosophical Society, 1953.
Corriente, F. Dictionary ofArabic and Allied Loanwords: Spanish, Portuguese, Catalan,

Galician, and Kindred Dialects. Leiden: Brill, 2008.
Du Cange, Charles du Fresne. Glossarium mediae et infimae latinitatis. Niort: L. Favre,

1887.
Lewis, Charlton T., and Charles Short. A New Latin Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1993.
Niemeyer, Jan-Frederick. Mediae Latinitatis Lexicon Minus: lexique latin medieval,

francais-anglais. Leiden: Brill, 1976.
Nortier, Genevieve. Les Bibliotheques medievales des abbayes benedictines de

Normandie. Fecamp, Le Bee, Le Mont Saint-Michel, Saint-Evroul, Lyre,
Jumieges, Saint-Wandrille, Saint-Ouen. Paris: Editions P. Lethielleux, 1971.
Rosser, John H. Historical Dictionary ofByzantium. Lanham: Scarecrow Press, 2001.
Tobler, Adolf, and Erhard Lommatzch. Altfranzosisches Worterbuch. Wiesbaden: Franz

Steiner Verlag, 1963.
200

Defining and Perceiving Peoples in The Chronicles of Norman Italy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Defining and Perceiving Peoples in The Chronicles of Norman Italy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

"VIDEBANTUR GENS EFFERA": DEFINING AND PERCEIVING PEOPLES

IN THE CHRONICLES OF NORMAN ITALY

Western Michigan University

Western Michigan University, 2011

Muslims) in five sources written by Amatus of Montecassino, Geoffrey Malaterra,

William of Apulia, Alexander of Telese, and Hugo Falcandus. Although recent

contained in my sources ever devolved into such simplistic, binary terms.

admittedly, sometimes based on uninformed stereotypes, they were more often

which they were created.

Preliminaries: Statement of Thesis and Outline of Methodology 1

II. PRAGMATICS AND HOSTILITY IN DEFINING THE MUSLIMS 31

Introduction: Terms of Reference 31

Anti-Islamic Rhetoric among the Chroniclers 32

Treachery, Pride, and Greed: Non-Religious Denigration of Muslim

Positive and Ambivalent Portrayals of Muslims 61

III. THE LOMBARDS: EMPATHY AND ODIUM 82

Introduction: Terms of Reference 82

Hostile Vocabulary in the Eleventh-Century Texts 85

Three Interpretations of Civitate 88

The Princely Lombard Family of Salerno 93

Twelfth-Century Interpretations of the Lombards 99

Pisa and Venice 115

IV. CONTEMPT FOR THE GRAECI 127

Introduction: Terms of Reference 127

Stereotypes of the Byzantines 131

The "Greeks" of Sicily 143

William of Apulia and the Byzantines 148

V. GENS, NATIO, AND POPULUS 155

Geoffrey Malaterra, William of Apulia, and Alexander of Telese 156

Gens and Populus in the Liber de Regno Sicile 163

VI. CONCLUSION 176

The Image of the Saracens 177

The Image of Italians 182

The Image of the Greeks 185

Gens, Natio, and Populus 188

Concluding Remarks 189

Preliminaries: Statement of Thesis and Outline of Methodology

Mezzogiorno perceived the region's latest arrivals, the Normans.

Such a deeply prejudicial attitude toward these newcomers, expressed through

1William of Apulia, Gesta Roberti Wiscardi, 11.424—428. All translations mine.

fixed impression, that the prince of Salerno held of the Normans.

Based on Germana Gandino's work on the writings of Liutprand of Cremona and

influences collided and overlapped.3 Successive waves oftransalpine migration added a

2Germana Gandino, // vocabolario politico e sociale diLiutprando diCremona (Rome: Istituto

understanding cultural interaction in the High Middle Ages.5

Mediterranean as the unfolding of divine providence;7 William ofApulia's Gesta Roberti

of Robert Guiscard;8 Geoffrey Malaterra's De rebus gestis Rogerii Calabriae et Siciliae

concentrating on the reigns of William I and William II.

homogeneity to allow meaningful comparisons to be made. The authors belonged to a

contrary.14 From a geographic standpoint, moreover, their narratives were confined

all of them wrote within a century of one another.

include a broader assortment of cultural groups, than hagiographical texts. More

comparative analyses to be made about the depiction of peoples in these histories.

issue should not be seen as a complete stumbling block.

Yet there is reason to be optimistic. When it comes to gauging mental attitudes,

describe people as well as assessing the stereotypes or "images" contained in the

each term with respect to the world of its author.

appreciation and aversion for different peoples, or gentes.

As considerable uncertainty about the existence of national sentiment and

Although this is intended to be a limited study, it may nevertheless lead to some

led to an increasing realization that subjects and sovereigns formed a unified

Schneidmuller, inhabitants came to be aware of their kingdom's unique individuality only

in the thirteenth century as monarchical power and institutions gradually expanded.